Anne Mowbray

Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen

Eileen
JAH's book on Eleanor the Secret Queen does discuss this in some detail as you mentioned. I can't remember whether he suggests this or not but what about Edward trying to buy Elizabeth, Duchesss of Norfolk's silence with a betrothal between Anne Mobray and his son Richard? Even if/though she knew of his relationship with her sister, which she most probably did. They were very close and Eleanor left instructions and her possessions to her sister. Edward was definitely not above that sort of double dealing; in fact it sounds just like him.
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
>

Thanks Elaine...I will dig the book out and take a look. What you suggest..that Edward attempted to buy Elizabeth DoN's silence...yes...I could see that could be very very possible. I was wondering whether a lay person would have known that a pre-contract would make a later marriage void and the children illegitimate?

Another question....what relation was this Elizabeth DoN to the duke of Norfolk who fought and died at Bosworth?

Eileen....Confused...

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
> JAH's book on Eleanor the Secret Queen does discuss this in some detail as you mentioned. I can't remember whether he suggests this or not but what about Edward trying to buy Elizabeth, Duchesss of Norfolk's silence with a betrothal between Anne Mobray and his son Richard? Even if/though she knew of his relationship with her sister, which she most probably did. They were very close and Eleanor left instructions and her possessions to her sister. Edward was definitely not above that sort of double dealing; in fact it sounds just like him.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> > Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
> >
>

This is the Leslau theory too, which Baldwin actually quotes. Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray was an intelligent forceful woman very protective of her sister and her sister's memory. John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died quite suddenly and quite young (the circumstances of his death were not unlike that of Edward, hale and hearty one day, dead the next). JAH and Leslau hint that he was paid off for his silence and that the marriage was part of the deal, albeit they did not know Anne would die so young and her lands would transfer so quickly to the Crown. Too late tonight to say more now, but I'm pretty sure that if there was a pre-contract Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray knew.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:58
Subject: Anne Mowbray


 

Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen

Years ago when JAH coming to our Branch to talk about Eleanor, before his book was published, I went to look at the DNB in the local library to see if there was any info on Eleanor. I don't think there was very much on Eleanor quite a bit about her father. One thing that struck me at the time was that apparently the Talbots were Lancastrians and they had the Earldom of Shrewsbury taken off them but Edward gave it back to Eleanor's brother, I think his name was Humphrey, in 1468. Eleanor died in 1468 so maybe the theory about paying the family off is true. Eleanor had died and none of them had talked so he gave him the Earldom back for keeping silent. Then he kept her sister quiet with the marriage to young Richard. In JAH's book I think there something about Eleanor's Mother and a dispute with Edward, can't remember exactly, so maybe they were all under his thumb. I must admit I changed my opinion of Edward quite a bit after reading JAH's book.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> This is the Leslau theory too, which Baldwin actually quotes. Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray was an intelligent forceful woman very protective of her sister and her sister's memory. John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died quite suddenly and quite young (the circumstances of his death were not unlike that of Edward, hale and hearty one day, dead the next). JAH and Leslau hint that he was paid off for his silence and that the marriage was part of the deal, albeit they did not know Anne would die so young and her lands would transfer so quickly to the Crown. Too late tonight to say more now, but I'm pretty sure that if there was a pre-contract Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray knew.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:19 pm (PDT) . Posted by:


<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...?subject=Re%3A%20Anne%20Mowbray>
"EileenB" b.eileen25

Thanks Elaine...I will dig the book out and take a look. What you
suggest..that Edward attempted to buy Elizabeth DoN's silence...yes...I
could see that could be very very possible. I was wondering whether a lay
person would have known that a pre-contract would make a later marriage void
and the children illegitimate?

T responds,
They should have known, as a pre-contract was actually a previous marriage.
Try a search for Marie and pre-contract. I did a short one and came up w/
this, Marie has explained this in depth here, she does it much better than I
can.













>
"It is a legal term for a marriage AS CITED AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO A
SUBSEQUENT
> MARRIAGE: ie it is 'pre-' NOT in the sense of being 'prelimnary' to a
> marriage by the same couple, but is rather 'pre-' in the sense of being a
> 'prior' marriage (ie an earlier marriage with a different partner).
> Therefore Edward and Eleanor would not have entered into a precontract.
> Their union only became a precontract when Edward married Elizabeth
> Woodville."

There's also a bit in one of the books which has Anne Warwick attending her sister Margaret Talbot's funeral as a reconciliation in 1468 and Eleanor and Elizabeth being there (could Be JAH). This was used to imply that the Warwicks and potentially Clarence could have known about the pre-contract at the time of the Warwick rebellion.  Of course it would have been no good them using it because it would have given Edward the opportunity to legitimise any future children. And of course Catesby was lawyer to the Butlers, to Hastings and eventually also to Clarence and I think it's JAH who said he could have had a hand in drawing up some of these compensations.



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:10
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

Years ago when JAH coming to our Branch to talk about Eleanor, before his book was published, I went to look at the DNB in the local library to see if there was any info on Eleanor. I don't think there was very much on Eleanor quite a bit about her father. One thing that struck me at the time was that apparently the Talbots were Lancastrians and they had the Earldom of Shrewsbury taken off them but Edward gave it back to Eleanor's brother, I think his name was Humphrey, in 1468. Eleanor died in 1468 so maybe the theory about paying the family off is true. Eleanor had died and none of them had talked so he gave him the Earldom back for keeping silent. Then he kept her sister quiet with the marriage to young Richard. In JAH's book I think there something about Eleanor's Mother and a dispute with Edward, can't remember exactly, so maybe they were all under his thumb. I must admit I changed my opinion of Edward quite a bit after reading JAH's book.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> This is the Leslau theory too, which Baldwin actually quotes. Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray was an intelligent forceful woman very protective of her sister and her sister's memory. John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died quite suddenly and quite young (the circumstances of his death were not unlike that of Edward, hale and hearty one day, dead the next). JAH and Leslau hint that he was paid off for his silence and that the marriage was part of the deal, albeit they did not know Anne would die so young and her lands would transfer so quickly to the Crown. Too late tonight to say more now, but I'm pretty sure that if there was a pre-contract Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray knew.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>

Terry..yes your correct...and I did know that the pre-contract is an actual marriage. Which now makes my comment stupid! Doh! Having said that I am still left wondering , as seems almost certain that Elizabeth DoN knew about the said marriage, what she thought of her daughter marrying an illegitimate Richard of Shrewsbury. As Eleanor was dead by the time of the Anne Mowbray wedding, did the Duchess make the mistake, as a lay person, that this made the Woodville wedding legal? Did she hope that everything would be alright with the passage of time....?

According to JA-H's book..Eleanor... the Duchess' "seems to have shown little enthusiasm for Edward's subsequent plans to marry her infant daughter to RoS" and " her friends the Pastons voiced anxiety at the prospect of the marriage"
"Moreover the Duchess was subjected to pressure from the king to surrender a great part of her jointure and she subsequently took steps to try to safeguard the interests of the Mowbray co-heirs, Lords Berkeley and Howard, when the marriage became a fait accompli. Elizabeth Talbot's participation in her daughter's splendid wedding festivies was minimal"

This leaves the strong impression, with me, that the marriage was hoisted onto the Duchess rather than her wanting it to happen as an inducement to buy her silence..

And the more I read about Edward the more I see he was the brother who was dishonourable one...but more about that later...Eileen



--- In , "Terry Buckaloo" <tandjules@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:19 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
>
>
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...?subject=Re%3A%20Anne%20Mowbray>
> "EileenB" b.eileen25
>
> Thanks Elaine...I will dig the book out and take a look. What you
> suggest..that Edward attempted to buy Elizabeth DoN's silence...yes...I
> could see that could be very very possible. I was wondering whether a lay
> person would have known that a pre-contract would make a later marriage void
> and the children illegitimate?
>
> T responds,
> They should have known, as a pre-contract was actually a previous marriage.
> Try a search for Marie and pre-contract. I did a short one and came up w/
> this, Marie has explained this in depth here, she does it much better than I
> can.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> "It is a legal term for a marriage AS CITED AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO A
> SUBSEQUENT
> > MARRIAGE: ie it is 'pre-' NOT in the sense of being 'prelimnary' to a
> > marriage by the same couple, but is rather 'pre-' in the sense of being a
> > 'prior' marriage (ie an earlier marriage with a different partner).
> > Therefore Edward and Eleanor would not have entered into a precontract.
> > Their union only became a precontract when Edward married Elizabeth
> > Woodville."
>
>
>
>
>

I've always said that - no-one ever says anything about him bumping off H6 or Clarence. He just had good PR 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 12:18
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

Terry..yes your correct...and I did know that the pre-contract is an actual marriage. Which now makes my comment stupid! Doh! Having said that I am still left wondering , as seems almost certain that Elizabeth DoN knew about the said marriage, what she thought of her daughter marrying an illegitimate Richard of Shrewsbury. As Eleanor was dead by the time of the Anne Mowbray wedding, did the Duchess make the mistake, as a lay person, that this made the Woodville wedding legal? Did she hope that everything would be alright with the passage of time....?

According to JA-H's book..Eleanor... the Duchess' "seems to have shown little enthusiasm for Edward's subsequent plans to marry her infant daughter to RoS" and " her friends the Pastons voiced anxiety at the prospect of the marriage"
"Moreover the Duchess was subjected to pressure from the king to surrender a great part of her jointure and she subsequently took steps to try to safeguard the interests of the Mowbray co-heirs, Lords Berkeley and Howard, when the marriage became a fait accompli. Elizabeth Talbot's participation in her daughter's splendid wedding festivies was minimal"

This leaves the strong impression, with me, that the marriage was hoisted onto the Duchess rather than her wanting it to happen as an inducement to buy her silence..

And the more I read about Edward the more I see he was the brother who was dishonourable one...but more about that later...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Terry Buckaloo" <tandjules@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:19 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
>
>
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...?subject=Re%3A%20Anne%20Mowbray>
> "EileenB" b.eileen25
>
> Thanks Elaine...I will dig the book out and take a look. What you
> suggest..that Edward attempted to buy Elizabeth DoN's silence...yes...I
> could see that could be very very possible. I was wondering whether a lay
> person would have known that a pre-contract would make a later marriage void
> and the children illegitimate?
>
> T responds,
> They should have known, as a pre-contract was actually a previous marriage.
> Try a search for Marie and pre-contract. I did a short one and came up w/
> this, Marie has explained this in depth here, she does it much better than I
> can.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> "It is a legal term for a marriage AS CITED AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO A
> SUBSEQUENT
> > MARRIAGE: ie it is 'pre-' NOT in the sense of being 'prelimnary' to a
> > marriage by the same couple, but is rather 'pre-' in the sense of being a
> > 'prior' marriage (ie an earlier marriage with a different partner).
> > Therefore Edward and Eleanor would not have entered into a precontract.
> > Their union only became a precontract when Edward married Elizabeth
> > Woodville."
>
>
>
>
>

Its no wonder he hit it off with the Woodvilles...their rapacious characters probably sat very well with him...and why he let them go unchecked..Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've always said that - no-one ever says anything about him bumping off H6 or Clarence. He just had good PR 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 12:18
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> Terry..yes your correct...and I did know that the pre-contract is an actual marriage. Which now makes my comment stupid! Doh! Having said that I am still left wondering , as seems almost certain that Elizabeth DoN knew about the said marriage, what she thought of her daughter marrying an illegitimate Richard of Shrewsbury. As Eleanor was dead by the time of the Anne Mowbray wedding, did the Duchess make the mistake, as a lay person, that this made the Woodville wedding legal? Did she hope that everything would be alright with the passage of time....?
>
> According to JA-H's book..Eleanor... the Duchess' "seems to have shown little enthusiasm for Edward's subsequent plans to marry her infant daughter to RoS" and " her friends the Pastons voiced anxiety at the prospect of the marriage"
> "Moreover the Duchess was subjected to pressure from the king to surrender a great part of her jointure and she subsequently took steps to try to safeguard the interests of the Mowbray co-heirs, Lords Berkeley and Howard, when the marriage became a fait accompli. Elizabeth Talbot's participation in her daughter's splendid wedding festivies was minimal"
>
> This leaves the strong impression, with me, that the marriage was hoisted onto the Duchess rather than her wanting it to happen as an inducement to buy her silence..
>
> And the more I read about Edward the more I see he was the brother who was dishonourable one...but more about that later...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Terry Buckaloo" <tandjules@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:19 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
> >
> >
> > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@?subject=Re%3A%20Anne%20Mowbray>
> > "EileenB" b.eileen25
> >
> > Thanks Elaine...I will dig the book out and take a look. What you
> > suggest..that Edward attempted to buy Elizabeth DoN's silence...yes...I
> > could see that could be very very possible. I was wondering whether a lay
> > person would have known that a pre-contract would make a later marriage void
> > and the children illegitimate?
> >
> > T responds,
> > They should have known, as a pre-contract was actually a previous marriage.
> > Try a search for Marie and pre-contract. I did a short one and came up w/
> > this, Marie has explained this in depth here, she does it much better than I
> > can.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > "It is a legal term for a marriage AS CITED AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO A
> > SUBSEQUENT
> > > MARRIAGE: ie it is 'pre-' NOT in the sense of being 'prelimnary' to a
> > > marriage by the same couple, but is rather 'pre-' in the sense of being a
> > > 'prior' marriage (ie an earlier marriage with a different partner).
> > > Therefore Edward and Eleanor would not have entered into a precontract.
> > > Their union only became a precontract when Edward married Elizabeth
> > > Woodville."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Of course it would have been no good them using it because it would have given Edward the opportunity to legitimise any future children.
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:10
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>  
>
> Years ago when JAH coming to our Branch to talk about Eleanor, before his book was published, I went to look at the DNB in the local library to see if there was any info on Eleanor. I don't think there was very much on Eleanor quite a bit about her father. One thing that struck me at the time was that apparently the Talbots were Lancastrians and they had the Earldom of Shrewsbury taken off them but Edward gave it back to Eleanor's brother, I think his name was Humphrey, in 1468. Eleanor died in 1468 so maybe the theory about paying the family off is true. Eleanor had died and none of them had talked so he gave him the Earldom back for keeping silent. Then he kept her sister quiet with the marriage to young Richard. In JAH's book I think there something about Eleanor's Mother and a dispute with Edward, can't remember exactly, so maybe they were all under his thumb. I must admit I changed my opinion of Edward quite a bit after reading JAH's book.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > This is the Leslau theory too, which Baldwin actually quotes. Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray was an intelligent forceful woman very protective of her sister and her sister's memory. John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died quite suddenly and quite young (the circumstances of his death were not unlike that of Edward, hale and hearty one day, dead the next). JAH and Leslau hint that he was paid off for his silence and that the marriage was part of the deal, albeit they did not know Anne would die so young and her lands would transfer so quickly to the Crown. Too late tonight to say more now, but I'm pretty sure that if there was a pre-contract Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray knew.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:58
> > Subject: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> > Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him right to the end. To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes sense, without it very little does.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:18
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Of course it would have been no good them using it because it would have given Edward the opportunity to legitimise any future children.
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:10
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>  
>
> Years ago when JAH coming to our Branch to talk about Eleanor, before his book was published, I went to look at the DNB in the local library to see if there was any info on Eleanor. I don't think there was very much on Eleanor quite a bit about her father. One thing that struck me at the time was that apparently the Talbots were Lancastrians and they had the Earldom of Shrewsbury taken off them but Edward gave it back to Eleanor's brother, I think his name was Humphrey, in 1468. Eleanor died in 1468 so maybe the theory about paying the family off is true. Eleanor had died and none of them had talked so he gave him the Earldom back for keeping silent. Then he kept her sister quiet with the marriage to young Richard. In JAH's book I think there something about Eleanor's Mother and a dispute with Edward, can't remember exactly, so maybe they were all under his thumb. I must admit I changed my opinion of Edward quite a bit after reading JAH's book.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > This is the Leslau theory too, which Baldwin actually quotes. Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray was an intelligent forceful woman very protective of her sister and her sister's memory. John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died quite suddenly and quite young (the circumstances of his death were not unlike that of Edward, hale and hearty one day, dead the next). JAH and Leslau hint that he was paid off for his silence and that the marriage was part of the deal, albeit they did not know Anne would die so young and her lands would transfer so quickly to the Crown. Too late tonight to say more now, but I'm pretty sure that if there was a pre-contract Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray knew.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:58
> > Subject: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> > Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have not an iota of doubt that the pre-contract existed.....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him right to the end. To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes sense, without it very little does.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > Of course it would have been no good them using it because it would have given Edward the opportunity to legitimise any future children.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:10
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >  
> >
> > Years ago when JAH coming to our Branch to talk about Eleanor, before his book was published, I went to look at the DNB in the local library to see if there was any info on Eleanor. I don't think there was very much on Eleanor quite a bit about her father. One thing that struck me at the time was that apparently the Talbots were Lancastrians and they had the Earldom of Shrewsbury taken off them but Edward gave it back to Eleanor's brother, I think his name was Humphrey, in 1468. Eleanor died in 1468 so maybe the theory about paying the family off is true. Eleanor had died and none of them had talked so he gave him the Earldom back for keeping silent. Then he kept her sister quiet with the marriage to young Richard. In JAH's book I think there something about Eleanor's Mother and a dispute with Edward, can't remember exactly, so maybe they were all under his thumb. I must admit I changed my opinion of Edward quite a bit after reading JAH's book.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the Leslau theory too, which Baldwin actually quotes. Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray was an intelligent forceful woman very protective of her sister and her sister's memory. John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died quite suddenly and quite young (the circumstances of his death were not unlike that of Edward, hale and hearty one day, dead the next). JAH and Leslau hint that he was paid off for his silence and that the marriage was part of the deal, albeit they did not know Anne would die so young and her lands would transfer so quickly to the Crown. Too late tonight to say more now, but I'm pretty sure that if there was a pre-contract Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray knew.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:58
> > > Subject: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> > > Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The one person I'm not sure about is EW. She obviously didn't know when she married Edward. Did she find out in the 1470s and target Clarence? Or did she honestly not know until 1483 and it was Edward who silenced Clarence and imprisoned Stillington so she (and everyone) would never know?



--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I have not an iota of doubt that the pre-contract existed.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him right to the end. To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes sense, without it very little does.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:18
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > Of course it would have been no good them using it because it would have given Edward the opportunity to legitimise any future children.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:10
> > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Years ago when JAH coming to our Branch to talk about Eleanor, before his book was published, I went to look at the DNB in the local library to see if there was any info on Eleanor. I don't think there was very much on Eleanor quite a bit about her father. One thing that struck me at the time was that apparently the Talbots were Lancastrians and they had the Earldom of Shrewsbury taken off them but Edward gave it back to Eleanor's brother, I think his name was Humphrey, in 1468. Eleanor died in 1468 so maybe the theory about paying the family off is true. Eleanor had died and none of them had talked so he gave him the Earldom back for keeping silent. Then he kept her sister quiet with the marriage to young Richard. In JAH's book I think there something about Eleanor's Mother and a dispute with Edward, can't remember exactly, so maybe they were all under his thumb. I must admit I changed my opinion of Edward quite a bit after reading JAH's book.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the Leslau theory too, which Baldwin actually quotes. Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray was an intelligent forceful woman very protective of her sister and her sister's memory. John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died quite suddenly and quite young (the circumstances of his death were not unlike that of Edward, hale and hearty one day, dead the next). JAH and Leslau hint that he was paid off for his silence and that the marriage was part of the deal, albeit they did not know Anne would die so young and her lands would transfer so quickly to the Crown. Too late tonight to say more now, but I'm pretty sure that if there was a pre-contract Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray knew.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:58
> > > > Subject: Anne Mowbray
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> > > > Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him right to the end. To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes sense, without it very little does.
>


I agree that the pre-contract must have existed, but do you really think Cis with her strong family pride (and evident displeasure at the Woodville match) would have been so keen to keep quiet about it? Somehow I find it hard to reconcile with everything else we know about her character. Would she have approved of an illegitimate heir to the throne, let alone manoeuvred behind the scenes to make it possible?

I doubt Warwick knew, either - why would he have been pushing for the French marriage if he knew, and most importantly (if he found out later), why on earth would he have kept quiet after switching sides?

Cis, I honestly don't know, but it could have been a way of temporarily shutting Warwick up. The heir was less than 6 months old; Eleanor was dead, Edward could have legitimised him or other boys. If Warwick did know I don't have him knowing until 1468, which is when the beans were spilled to his wife at her sister's funeral.  And George was then heir. What would be the point of announcing anything after switching sides? At the point he did Edward had no son, and when he did there was plenty of time for Edward to marry again and put things right.  I don't think Warwick knew in 1464. But it's total supposition, as I said.  


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:47
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him right to the end. To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes sense, without it very little does.
>

I agree that the pre-contract must have existed, but do you really think Cis with her strong family pride (and evident displeasure at the Woodville match) would have been so keen to keep quiet about it? Somehow I find it hard to reconcile with everything else we know about her character. Would she have approved of an illegitimate heir to the throne, let alone manoeuvred behind the scenes to make it possible?

I doubt Warwick knew, either - why would he have been pushing for the French marriage if he knew, and most importantly (if he found out later), why on earth would he have kept quiet after switching sides?

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> And the more I read about Edward the more I see he was the brother who was
> dishonourable one...but more about that later...Eileen

The invasion of Scotland was also for a dodgy reason - I forget the details,
but Edward had reneged on a marriage deal and was now trying to avoid
financial penalties which he himself had agreed to. I *think* he had
arranged a Scottish marriage for one of his daughters, including paying a
dowry which was to remain in Scotland whether the marriage went through or
not, and then he cancelled the marriage and demanded the dowry back.

The more shifty and/or unpleasant Edward was, the more sympathetic the
position of the Lancastrian plotters becomes. They had seen little of
Richard, he was a largely unkown quantity, so they would probably have
expected him to be more of the same as his brother, and on that basis you
can see why they wanted to seize the opportunity to oust him before he got
himself properly established. By the time they realised their mistake, if
they ever did, they were in too deep to pull out and survive.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who
> disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is
> that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to
> save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis
> to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him
> right to the end.

Do you mean she pleaded for Warwick, or for Clarence? Either way it shows
the unlovely Edward steamrollering over his old mum's wishes, which compares
badly with Richard's sweet letter to her. The more one finds out about this
lot, the more decent and sensible Richard seems: it's not just our
imagination or bias. There he is in the middle of all this tangle, a lone
voice doing his best to be kind and fair and honest, albeit with occasional
explosions when very provoked.

> To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes
> sense, without it very little does.

Yes. Plus, it's in character - if he married one badly-thought-out bride
just to get her into bed, why not two?

Good point re pre-contract, the other explanation is Richard saying I am going to be King,how am I going to do it? Oh I know I'll say that Edward's children were illegitimate because he was married to someone before Elizabeth. I wonder who I could chose as his first wife? Oh I know, Lady Eleanor Butler she was around at the time or should I chose Elizabeth Lucy or Wayte or whatever her name is? That would be a bit dangerous because of young Arthur( is that Edward's son's name?) does that mean he could be considered to be King? No I'll go for Lady Eleanor. Here Stillington there's something I want you to do for me. You couldn't make it up!! The other points fit too. Stillington was imprisoned at the same time as Clarence

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him right to the end. To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes sense, without it very little does.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > Of course it would have been no good them using it because it would have given Edward the opportunity to legitimise any future children.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:10
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >  
> >
> > Years ago when JAH coming to our Branch to talk about Eleanor, before his book was published, I went to look at the DNB in the local library to see if there was any info on Eleanor. I don't think there was very much on Eleanor quite a bit about her father. One thing that struck me at the time was that apparently the Talbots were Lancastrians and they had the Earldom of Shrewsbury taken off them but Edward gave it back to Eleanor's brother, I think his name was Humphrey, in 1468. Eleanor died in 1468 so maybe the theory about paying the family off is true. Eleanor had died and none of them had talked so he gave him the Earldom back for keeping silent. Then he kept her sister quiet with the marriage to young Richard. In JAH's book I think there something about Eleanor's Mother and a dispute with Edward, can't remember exactly, so maybe they were all under his thumb. I must admit I changed my opinion of Edward quite a bit after reading JAH's book.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the Leslau theory too, which Baldwin actually quotes. Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray was an intelligent forceful woman very protective of her sister and her sister's memory. John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died quite suddenly and quite young (the circumstances of his death were not unlike that of Edward, hale and hearty one day, dead the next). JAH and Leslau hint that he was paid off for his silence and that the marriage was part of the deal, albeit they did not know Anne would die so young and her lands would transfer so quickly to the Crown. Too late tonight to say more now, but I'm pretty sure that if there was a pre-contract Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray knew.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:58
> > > Subject: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> > > Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Probably because he had no proof that the marriage had taken place, the only person with the proof was Stillington and he would not have confessed to anything while Edward was alive. Also Warwick may not have known that Stillington was involved, he may have just heard it through family connections and without proof he wouldn't be listened to. Also Eleanor was dead by then. He probably didn't think that Edward would make a come back as he had no money and was reliant on Margaret and her husband.In "Sunne" Sharon Penman has him asking Charles for money and troops but not getting them immediately eventually he gives in and helps. Sharon does lots of proper research so it is possible it is true. Maybe Warwick thought he would never have to use his information and don't forget when Edward fled to Burgundy he didn't have a son, Edward of Westminster was born while his father was in exile. The daughters would just have been good marriage material.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him right to the end. To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes sense, without it very little does.
> >
>
>
> I agree that the pre-contract must have existed, but do you really think Cis with her strong family pride (and evident displeasure at the Woodville match) would have been so keen to keep quiet about it? Somehow I find it hard to reconcile with everything else we know about her character. Would she have approved of an illegitimate heir to the throne, let alone manoeuvred behind the scenes to make it possible?
>
> I doubt Warwick knew, either - why would he have been pushing for the French marriage if he knew, and most importantly (if he found out later), why on earth would he have kept quiet after switching sides?
>

Exactly. And would you really have chosen out of the blue someone from one the greatest families in the land who also just happened to be the late sister in law of the intelligent and formidable Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, who would likely have made loud noises about besmirching her sister's honour? Interesting she didn't! I'm sure Richard wouldn't have had too much difficulty naming some deceased merchant's wife, particularly if he'd paid out the odd backhander. 

________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 16:01
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

Good point re pre-contract, the other explanation is Richard saying I am going to be King,how am I going to do it? Oh I know I'll say that Edward's children were illegitimate because he was married to someone before Elizabeth. I wonder who I could chose as his first wife? Oh I know, Lady Eleanor Butler she was around at the time or should I chose Elizabeth Lucy or Wayte or whatever her name is? That would be a bit dangerous because of young Arthur( is that Edward's son's name?) does that mean he could be considered to be King? No I'll go for Lady Eleanor. Here Stillington there's something I want you to do for me. You couldn't make it up!! The other points fit too. Stillington was imprisoned at the same time as Clarence

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him right to the end. To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes sense, without it very little does.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > Of course it would have been no good them using it because it would have given Edward the opportunity to legitimise any future children.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:10
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> > à
> >
> > Years ago when JAH coming to our Branch to talk about Eleanor, before his book was published, I went to look at the DNB in the local library to see if there was any info on Eleanor. I don't think there was very much on Eleanor quite a bit about her father. One thing that struck me at the time was that apparently the Talbots were Lancastrians and they had the Earldom of Shrewsbury taken off them but Edward gave it back to Eleanor's brother, I think his name was Humphrey, in 1468. Eleanor died in 1468 so maybe the theory about paying the family off is true. Eleanor had died and none of them had talked so he gave him the Earldom back for keeping silent. Then he kept her sister quiet with the marriage to young Richard. In JAH's book I think there something about Eleanor's Mother and a dispute with Edward, can't remember exactly, so maybe they were all under his thumb. I must admit I changed my opinion of Edward quite a bit after reading JAH's book.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the Leslau theory too, which Baldwin actually quotes. Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray was an intelligent forceful woman very protective of her sister and her sister's memory. John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died quite suddenly and quite young (the circumstances of his death were not unlike that of Edward, hale and hearty one day, dead the next). JAH and Leslau hint that he was paid off for his silence and that the marriage was part of the deal, albeit they did not know Anne would die so young and her lands would transfer so quickly to the Crown. Too late tonight to say more now, but I'm pretty sure that if there was a pre-contract Elizabeth Talbot/Mowbray knew.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:58
> > > Subject: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> > > Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes Charles of Burgundy hesitated a lot before he agreed to help Edward. He even let Somerset return to take up the Lancastrian cause. I think it's Kendall who says Richard, Rivers and Hastings lived there in some poverty and had to trap rabbits in the woods in order to eat. Charles hosted Edward, but only to keep a foot in both camps. 



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 16:19
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

Probably because he had no proof that the marriage had taken place, the only person with the proof was Stillington and he would not have confessed to anything while Edward was alive. Also Warwick may not have known that Stillington was involved, he may have just heard it through family connections and without proof he wouldn't be listened to. Also Eleanor was dead by then. He probably didn't think that Edward would make a come back as he had no money and was reliant on Margaret and her husband.In "Sunne" Sharon Penman has him asking Charles for money and troops but not getting them immediately eventually he gives in and helps. Sharon does lots of proper research so it is possible it is true. Maybe Warwick thought he would never have to use his information and don't forget when Edward fled to Burgundy he didn't have a son, Edward of Westminster was born while his father was in exile. The daughters would just have been good marriage material.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm pretty certain like you, but I'm sure there are some other members who disagree. Clarence definitely yes, and one of the reasons I warm to him is that he seems to have protected Richard from the knowledge. Did he want to save little brother? Warwick, probably, but was he prevailed upon by Cis to keep quiet? She seems to have thought a lot of him and pleaded for him right to the end. To me the pre-contract must have existed because with it everything makes sense, without it very little does.
> >
>
>
> I agree that the pre-contract must have existed, but do you really think Cis with her strong family pride (and evident displeasure at the Woodville match) would have been so keen to keep quiet about it? Somehow I find it hard to reconcile with everything else we know about her character. Would she have approved of an illegitimate heir to the throne, let alone manoeuvred behind the scenes to make it possible?
>
> I doubt Warwick knew, either - why would he have been pushing for the French marriage if he knew, and most importantly (if he found out later), why on earth would he have kept quiet after switching sides?
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> I'm sure Richard wouldn't have had too much difficulty naming some
> deceased merchant's wife, particularly if he'd paid out the odd
> backhander.

An excellent and original point imo.

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen

Carol responds:

That's a really good question and one that I've wondered about, too. Of course, Tudor historians would use it to argue that there was no precontract, but I think the evidence points strongly in the other direction. Possibly, she didn't know about her sister's marriage to Edward, which seems the most logical explanation but is at odds with the close relationship between the sisters. Or possibly, Eleanor herself wanted to treat it as if it had never happened, and now that she was dead, Elizabeth considered it best for her sister's reputation to do the same. The family, after all, had never spoken up. Still, that doesn't seem like adequate justification for marrying her daughter to a boy that she knew was illegitimate and giving that same boy a claim through marriage to her a title that rightfully belonged to the nearest male relative, Lord Howard.

It's obvious why *Edward* would want the marriage, not only for lands and titles for his son but as insurance that Elizabeth would keep her mouth shut about the precontract, but why would Elizabeth want it? Was her daughter's becoming a "princess" worth the risk of discovery? Or did Edward, as you suggest, apply some sort of pressure? (It certainly wouldn't be blackmail about revealing the secret first marriage!)

Other possibilities, anyone?

Carol

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen

Carol responds:

Although I do think Warwick would have spoken about it if he knew, if only to discredit Edward and the Woodvilles, it wouldn't have greatly concerned him as Prince Edward was only an infant at the time of Warwick's death, and by that time, Warwick had already switched sides and was fighting for Lancaster. But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray



> But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted
> to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.

Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry
VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and
make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to
power that wouldn't happen.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip]
>
> The more shifty and/or unpleasant Edward was, the more sympathetic the position of the Lancastrian plotters becomes. They had seen little of Richard, he was a largely unkown quantity, so they would probably have expected him to be more of the same as his brother, and on that basis you can see why they wanted to seize the opportunity to oust him before he got himself properly established. By the time they realised their mistake, if they ever did, they were in too deep to pull out and survive.

Carol responds:

That's one way to look at it, but I don't think the Lancastrians cared one way or another about Richard. They wanted Henry, shabby as his claim was, simply because he wasn't a member of the House of York. The Earl of Oxford had a long-standing personal grudge against Edward that may or may not have extended to Richard, but he was a die-hard Lancastrian. France, of course, feared Richard and hoped that Henry would feel indebted to them. The disaffected Yorkists either wanted Edward V back on the throne (till the rumor of his death was spread) and then hoped for a York-Tudor joint rule with Elizabeth of York as heir or simply feared that Richard would give their jobs to Northerners--as he did when they brought about the fulfillment of their own prophecy by joining "Buckingham's Rebellion."
And Rhys ap Thomas was bribed to betray Richard's trust.

No doubt every rebellion has its mixture of idealists and self-interested opportunists, but I save my sympathy for Richard, the loyal dead at Bosworth, the victims of the Tudors, and England under Henry VII.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 2:07 AM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> No doubt every rebellion has its mixture of idealists and self-interested
> opportunists, but I save my sympathy for Richard, the loyal dead at
> Bosworth, the victims of the Tudors, and England under Henry VII.

But it doesn't really help the cause of justice to replace one bias with
another, and demonising the opposition weakens our cause by making us look
like unreasonable fanatics. And in order to have any hope of not repeating
the mistakes of history, we need to understand why they happened, and how it
came about that people who were, for the most part, all probably perfectly
decent people (except Morton, who was brave and loyal but in other respects
seems to have been a copper-bottomed shit) managed to end up lethally at
cross-purposes.

Carol, I think both JAH and the oft-quoted Leslau refer to the fact that Elizabeth Talbot was both very intelligent and religious. I haven't got the book in front of me but I think some of the endowments at Cambridge (again without looking Gonville and Caius College) are in both their names and were instigated by Elizabeth. Leslau of course goes on to claim that Elizabeth and Eleanor were buried in the Minories (Eleanor not at Norwich but under an assumed name at the Minories) and that the latter did not die until 1495 which is when the first endowment to the college in her name appears. His reasoning for this is that Elizabeth chose to be buried in the Minories, rather than next to her daughter Anne in Westminster, or to her husband, and that the convenient death and burial of Eleanor in Norwich in 1468 was a cover-up when Edward was having problems with Warwick and Clarence. Always thought it would make a great historical thriller!!


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen

Carol responds:

That's a really good question and one that I've wondered about, too. Of course, Tudor historians would use it to argue that there was no precontract, but I think the evidence points strongly in the other direction. Possibly, she didn't know about her sister's marriage to Edward, which seems the most logical explanation but is at odds with the close relationship between the sisters. Or possibly, Eleanor herself wanted to treat it as if it had never happened, and now that she was dead, Elizabeth considered it best for her sister's reputation to do the same. The family, after all, had never spoken up. Still, that doesn't seem like adequate justification for marrying her daughter to a boy that she knew was illegitimate and giving that same boy a claim through marriage to her a title that rightfully belonged to the nearest male relative, Lord Howard.

It's obvious why *Edward* would want the marriage, not only for lands and titles for his son but as insurance that Elizabeth would keep her mouth shut about the precontract, but why would Elizabeth want it? Was her daughter's becoming a "princess" worth the risk of discovery? Or did Edward, as you suggest, apply some sort of pressure? (It certainly wouldn't be blackmail about revealing the secret first marriage!)

Other possibilities, anyone?

Carol

Hilary wrote:

> > I'm sure Richard wouldn't have had too much difficulty naming some deceased merchant's wife, particularly if he'd paid out the odd backhander.

Claire responded:
> An excellent and original point imo.
>
Carol adds:

Except that a merchant's wife, such as Elizabeth Lambert (only not dead), wouldn't have mattered to the nobility and could have been bought off. The Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter, on the other hand, was a very big deal. But Mary (I think it was Mary) is right--Richard couldn't have made that story up. Picture him sitting on the privy and instead of saying, "Ah, whom shall a man trust?" he's muttering, "Ah, what noblewoman shall a man defame?"

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Carol, I think both JAH and the oft-quoted Leslau refer to the fact that Elizabeth Talbot was both very intelligent and religious. I haven't got the book in front of me but I think some of the endowments at Cambridge (again without looking Gonville and Caius College) are in both their names and were instigated by Elizabeth. Leslau of course goes on to claim that Elizabeth and Eleanor were buried in the Minories (Eleanor not at Norwich but under an assumed name at the Minories) and that the latter did not die until 1495 which is when the first endowment to the college in her name appears. His reasoning for this is that Elizabeth chose to be buried in the Minories, rather than next to her daughter Anne in Westminster, or to her husband, and that the convenient death and burial of Eleanor in Norwich in 1468 was a cover-up when Edward was having problems with Warwick and Clarence. Always thought it would make a great historical thriller!!

Carol responds:

I've read J A-H and find him reasonably convincing (of course, it's hard to analyze what you're reading objectively if you *want* to agree with it). Leslau, however, I haven't read. His theories are just too far out to interest me. What are his credentials, do you know? I'm guessing that he's an art historian (analysis of Holbein), but I really don't know.

Carol

Carol earlier:

> > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.

Claire responded:
> Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.

Carol again:

If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that he knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.

Carol

I still think only three people knew about Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler: Edward, Eleanor, and the bishop who performed the ceremony (possibly under duress). The silence of anyone else who might have been in on the secret just makes no sense whatsoever; Edward's opponents, and those of the Woodvilles, would have employed the 15th-century equivalent of skywriters, PR firms, ad agencies, and brass bands to trumpet it all over the planet.

If Morton spent years insinuating that Richard III murdered his nephews to take the crown, can you imagine what some unscrupulous operative for the Lancastrians could have made out of a juicy slab of meat like kingly bigamy?

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Although I do think Warwick would have spoken about it if he knew, if only to discredit Edward and the Woodvilles, it wouldn't have greatly concerned him as Prince Edward was only an infant at the time of Warwick's death, and by that time, Warwick had already switched sides and was fighting for Lancaster. But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
>
> Carol
>

Any dead woman--ANY dead woman--would have done nicely for the purpose. "He married a young fisherwoman/brewster/housemaid he'd taken a fancy to, and he bullied the Bishop into performing the ceremony. Her name was... um.. Bridget. Or Kate. Or possibly Frances. I'd ask, but she suffered a tragic fatal accident involving a spinning wheel. Or possibly it was typhoid. Or eels. Anyway, she's dead now. So, so sad."

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary wrote:
>
> > > I'm sure Richard wouldn't have had too much difficulty naming some deceased merchant's wife, particularly if he'd paid out the odd backhander.
>
> Claire responded:
> > An excellent and original point imo.
> >
> Carol adds:
>
> Except that a merchant's wife, such as Elizabeth Lambert (only not dead), wouldn't have mattered to the nobility and could have been bought off. The Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter, on the other hand, was a very big deal. But Mary (I think it was Mary) is right--Richard couldn't have made that story up. Picture him sitting on the privy and instead of saying, "Ah, whom shall a man trust?" he's muttering, "Ah, what noblewoman shall a man defame?"
>
> Carol
>

Wouldn't it be something if George, who had tried to take the throne from his brother twice and generally made himself unpleasant and disruptive in any way he could think of, accidentally tripped over the truth in his unending parade of trash talk?

GEORGE: You're a right bastard!

EDWARD: Pfft. Go away, little bro.

GEORGE: And so are those little monsters you whelped!

EDWARD: Guards! Guards! Seize him!

GEORGE: Um...

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
>
> Claire responded:
> > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
>
> Carol again:
>
> If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that he knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
>
> Carol
>

Carol earlier:

> > No doubt every rebellion has its mixture of idealists and self-interested opportunists, but I save my sympathy for Richard, the loyal dead at Bosworth, the victims of the Tudors, and England under Henry VII

Claire M Jordan responded:

> But it doesn't really help the cause of justice to replace one bias with another, and demonising the opposition weakens our cause by making us look like unreasonable fanatics.
>
Carol responds:

Stating that Richard's opponents acted from a combination of idealism and self-interest (self-interest being the chief motive of almost everyone in the Wars of the Roses) is not demonizing them. The same could be said of Richard's followers. Some, like Catesby, acted out of self-interest. Others, like Ratcliffe and Brackenbury, acted out of loyalty and friendship. As I said, I give my sympathy to those who fought and died for their king. That's not to say that I don't understand and to some degree compassionate with the Earl of Oxford, but my heart is not with him.

Believe me, I share your concern about the dangers of unreasonable fanaticism and I try to see matters as objectively as possible given my unwavering belief that Richard has been treated unfairly by history and historians. I believe, as I have said repeatedly, in the importance of primary sources in determining what really happened throughout the entire Yorkist era and beyond. That does not mean that I need to feel compassion for, say, the self-interested Stanleys, the traitorous Rhys ap Thomas, or the men who humiliated Richard's body after his death. I'm well aware of the distinction between my feelings (which are as valid as your compassion for Richard's enemies), and my capacity for objective analysis, which is what I am attempting to do in assessing the motives of Richard's enemies.

Please don't accuse me of unreasonable fanaticism. In return, I won't accuse you of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, an equally baseless charge.

Carol

Carol wrote:
//snip//
"No doubt every rebellion has its mixture of idealists and self-interested
opportunists, but I save my sympathy for Richard, the loyal dead at
Bosworth, the victims of the Tudors, and England under Henry VII."

Doug here:
It does seem to me that *why* a certain person participated in a rebellion
matters a great deal but, because of the dearth of records, biased *and*
unbiased, it's something that's very, very difficult to discover. Some are
easy; Morton, etc, but many, and especially those not at the very top of the
pyramid, are much harder. As many hundreds were willing, if I can be excused
a quote from US history, to sacrifice "their lives, their property and their
sacred honor" for someone/some cause, surely for them at least there should
be some sympathy?
It's not as if there were regular elections for king and all they had to do
was wait until the next one took place - something I have to keep reminding
myself, by the way. The idea of a "loyal Opposition" was, at least in the
UK, still over two hundred years, one Civil War and the deposition of two
Kings away...
I do wonder though, since ruling/governing *was* so "personal", (almost
everything originated either from the King or his Councillors), if that may
be responsible for much of what occurred during the WoTR? It's much easier
to blame "influence" or "corruption" for one's ideas not being adopted or
not receiving what one thinks is due than admitting your proposals/suggested
patronage aren't any good. It's not as if *that* doesn't happen nowadays!
Doug

I dunno mcJohn..Im inclined to think after reading the Eleanor book and other stuff that possibly more people knew than think. Why was the the DoN's friends the Pastons worried about the marriage of her daughter to Richard of Shrewsbury. Why were rumours around at the time that Edward had treated a female member of Warwick's family badly. Why did Mancini write later on that EW was worried that her marriage was not legal and that her children were in danger of getting disinherited....Who was going to be brave enough to stand up and rock the boat....look what happened to Stillington (and Clarence for that matter).the poor man was in and out of prison like a yoyo eventually dying while in prison during Weasle's reign. I do agree that it was strange if Warwick knew he did not use it at the time but I believe he had his reasons which are lost to us now. I think I am correct...and I get rather foggy about WOTR family trees that Warwick and Eleanor were cousins. It might be that it was just rumours....but I believe that Warwick would have heard the rumours or the truth and the time was not right for him...Eileen

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I still think only three people knew about Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler: Edward, Eleanor, and the bishop who performed the ceremony (possibly under duress). The silence of anyone else who might have been in on the secret just makes no sense whatsoever; Edward's opponents, and those of the Woodvilles, would have employed the 15th-century equivalent of skywriters, PR firms, ad agencies, and brass bands to trumpet it all over the planet.
>
> If Morton spent years insinuating that Richard III murdered his nephews to take the crown, can you imagine what some unscrupulous operative for the Lancastrians could have made out of a juicy slab of meat like kingly bigamy?
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Although I do think Warwick would have spoken about it if he knew, if only to discredit Edward and the Woodvilles, it wouldn't have greatly concerned him as Prince Edward was only an infant at the time of Warwick's death, and by that time, Warwick had already switched sides and was fighting for Lancaster. But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Warwick was Eleanor's uncle; his wife was sister to her mother, but they'd fallen out over Anne Beauchamp's inheritance. However, they were, I understand, reconciled just before Margaret Talbot died in 1468. I like you, do think more people knew, including probably Catesby who drew up all the agreements. And Catesby worked for Clarence.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 18:06
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

I dunno mcJohn..Im inclined to think after reading the Eleanor book and other stuff that possibly more people knew than think. Why was the the DoN's friends the Pastons worried about the marriage of her daughter to Richard of Shrewsbury. Why were rumours around at the time that Edward had treated a female member of Warwick's family badly. Why did Mancini write later on that EW was worried that her marriage was not legal and that her children were in danger of getting disinherited....Who was going to be brave enough to stand up and rock the boat....look what happened to Stillington (and Clarence for that matter).the poor man was in and out of prison like a yoyo eventually dying while in prison during Weasle's reign. I do agree that it was strange if Warwick knew he did not use it at the time but I believe he had his reasons which are lost to us now. I think I am correct...and I get rather foggy about WOTR family trees that Warwick and Eleanor were
cousins. It might be that it was just rumours....but I believe that Warwick would have heard the rumours or the truth and the time was not right for him...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I still think only three people knew about Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler: Edward, Eleanor, and the bishop who performed the ceremony (possibly under duress). The silence of anyone else who might have been in on the secret just makes no sense whatsoever; Edward's opponents, and those of the Woodvilles, would have employed the 15th-century equivalent of skywriters, PR firms, ad agencies, and brass bands to trumpet it all over the planet.
>
> If Morton spent years insinuating that Richard III murdered his nephews to take the crown, can you imagine what some unscrupulous operative for the Lancastrians could have made out of a juicy slab of meat like kingly bigamy?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good point Hilary...Im certain George knew (that is why he had to die) and feel its very possible Warwick knew too...BUT this leads me to wonder what reason was it that kept Warwick quiet about it. They certainly had their reasons which are lost to us at the moment..so yes...I think you are barking up the correct tree....I love it when someone points out to me something I have not thought of and another small piece of puzzle clicks into place...Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Although I do think Warwick would have spoken about it if he knew, if only to discredit Edward and the Woodvilles, it wouldn't have greatly concerned him as Prince Edward was only an infant at the time of Warwick's death, and by that time, Warwick had already switched sides and was fighting for Lancaster. But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

Carol earlier:

> > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.

Claire responded:
> Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.

Carol again:

If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that he
knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.

Carol

Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>  
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
>
> Claire responded:
> > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
>
> Carol again:
>
> If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that he
> knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't know if this incident really happened but I love it! Such a Cinderella-esq story.......I know it's not very scholarly of me to indulge in this story ( says timidly).

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> >
> > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> >
> > Claire responded:
> > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that he
> > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

So you and I think the same on this too Eileen!! Why on earth would the Duke of Clarence consort with cookshop owners; why not have her sent to some convent in the country (like Eleanor) or off to favourite sister Meg?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:38
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>  
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
>
> Claire responded:
> > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
>
> Carol again:
>
> If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that he
> knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why? 



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:49
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

I don't know if this incident really happened but I love it! Such a Cinderella-esq story.......I know it's not very scholarly of me to indulge in this story ( says timidly).

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:

> Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> >
> > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> >
> > Claire responded:
> > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that
he
> > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
>


That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)

Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)

Ishita...remember the Croyland Chronicler wrote about it....so methinks there is truth in it...eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know if this incident really happened but I love it! Such a Cinderella-esq story.......I know it's not very scholarly of me to indulge in this story ( says timidly).
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> > >
> > > Claire responded:
> > > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
> > >
> > > Carol again:
> > >
> > > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that he
> > > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Exactly Hilary...Is George supposed to have forced her to change into a cookshop maid's probably smelly attire...that makes no sense because as soon as he left she would have taken them off...on the other hand if he had not forced her and she was willing to hide there to escape Richard why did she end up allowing him to rescue her and take her to St Martins...This version of the story makes no sense...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So you and I think the same on this too Eileen!! Why on earth would the Duke of Clarence consort with cookshop owners; why not have her sent to some convent in the country (like Eleanor) or off to favourite sister Meg?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:38
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >  
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> >
> > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> >
> > Claire responded:
> > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that he
> > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Poor old George...if he had lived today he could have got a t-shirt printed with "WHY ME?'
on the front...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:49
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> I don't know if this incident really happened but I love it! Such a Cinderella-esq story.......I know it's not very scholarly of me to indulge in this story ( says timidly).
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> > >
> > > Claire responded:
> > > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
> > >
> > > Carol again:
> > >
> > > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that
> he
> > > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> Any dead woman--ANY dead woman--would have done nicely for the purpose.
> "He married a young fisherwoman/brewster/housemaid he'd taken a fancy to,
> and he bullied the Bishop into performing the ceremony. Her name was...
> um.. Bridget. Or Kate. Or possibly Frances. I'd ask, but she suffered a
> tragic fatal accident involving a spinning wheel. Or possibly it was
> typhoid. Or eels. Anyway, she's dead now. So, so sad."

Better yet, if he was going to make it up he could have claimed that Edward
had married somebody on the continent while he was in exile, thus making it
impossible to check the parish records.

I love the part in We Speak No Treason where Richard finds her, in a dreadful state smelling of grease and onions..(I think? I might have made that bit up} and Patch fetches his horse and he tosses her on it wrapped in his cloak and then they both set of for St Martins.

Later on when Richard questions his brother George feigns surprise and says "A chop-shop you say!...her brains must be addled" or something similar...Ah they dont write stuff like this any more....

Eileen


--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> >
>
>
> That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)
>
> Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)
>

Yep. And you know even Starkey was kindly disposed towards him which is truly weird. If George were here today I could see him as a millionaire footballer in rehab.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:37
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

Poor old George...if he had lived today he could have got a t-shirt printed with "WHY ME?'
on the front...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:49
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> I don't know if this incident really happened but I love it! Such a Cinderella-esq story.......I know it's not very scholarly of me to indulge in this story ( says timidly).
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> > >
> > > Claire responded:
> > > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
> > >
> > > Carol again:
> > >
> > > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that
> he
> > > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why? 

Carol responds:

Well, here's the Croyland chronicler's (or continuator's) version:

"After, as already stated, the son of king Henry, to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick, had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."

So the chronicler, at least, states that Clarence hid her from Gloucester because he didn't want to share the lands, and we know from (I think) the Paston letters that the part about not wanting to share is true ("he may have my lady, but they shall part no livelode"). We can substitute "cleverness" or "astuteness" for "craftiness" since our snide old chronicler doesn't like Richard, and it's certainly possible that he's supplying his own interpretation here as he did with the rumors about Richard's wanting to marry EoY. About all we can say with certainty is that, however improbable it seems, Richard did find Anne in a cookshop, either escaping from or hidden by George (either interpretation doesn't reflect creditably on George) and that Richard placed Anne in sanctuary (where she would be protected both from George and from gossip until the necessary arrangements could be made for their marriage, including the dispensation involving Edward of Lancaster). Not even Croyland can make Richard appear anything other than chivalrous in this episode. But the fact that he found her at all suggests something more than "craftiness" (or, put more kindly, intelligence)--Anne must have found a way to inform him where she was. Otherwise, how could he ever have figured out where she was?

Interestingly, the chronicler credits both George and Richard with high intelligence and laments that they could not work together, one of the few judgments he makes with which I agree. (Of course, I think that most, though perhaps not all, of the difficulties were of George's making.)

It will be interesting to see what J A-H makes of all this when his new book on George comes out.

Carol

Now that is a good one!! (Er what parish records - Thomas Cromwell hadn't got here yet. I so wish he had, life would have been so much easier)



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:51
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

> Any dead woman--ANY dead woman--would have done nicely for the purpose.
> "He married a young fisherwoman/brewster/housemaid he'd taken a fancy to,
> and he bullied the Bishop into performing the ceremony. Her name was...
> um.. Bridget. Or Kate. Or possibly Frances. I'd ask, but she suffered a
> tragic fatal accident involving a spinning wheel. Or possibly it was
> typhoid. Or eels. Anyway, she's dead now. So, so sad."

Better yet, if he was going to make it up he could have claimed that Edward
had married somebody on the continent while he was in exile, thus making it
impossible to check the parish records.

I am so looking forward to that. Someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on George....Ive only had a quick peep but it looks interesting....Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> It will be interesting to see what J A-H makes of all this when his new book on George comes out.
>
> Carol
>

Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To hell with the estates!' or something like that? You're right PG just isn't the same. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:44
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

I love the part in We Speak No Treason where Richard finds her, in a dreadful state smelling of grease and onions..(I think? I might have made that bit up} and Patch fetches his horse and he tosses her on it wrapped in his cloak and then they both set of for St Martins.

Later on when Richard questions his brother George feigns surprise and says "A chop-shop you say!...her brains must be addled" or something similar...Ah they dont write stuff like this any more....

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> >
>
>
> That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)
>
> Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)
>

Its while she was in the cook shop that she contracted the TB...the spit boy coughed in her face when he tried to get fresh...Comparing We Speak No Treason to anyone of PG's books is like comparing steak to beefburgers. How PG gets away with it I will never know...One lucky woman. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To hell with the estates!' or something like that? You're right PG just isn't the same. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:44
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> I love the part in We Speak No Treason where Richard finds her, in a dreadful state smelling of grease and onions..(I think? I might have made that bit up} and Patch fetches his horse and he tosses her on it wrapped in his cloak and then they both set of for St Martins.
>
> Later on when Richard questions his brother George feigns surprise and says "A chop-shop you say!...her brains must be addled" or something similar...Ah they dont write stuff like this any more....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> > >
> >
> >
> > That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)
> >
> > Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

By the way...re Anne Mowbray...there is a photo in JA-H's Eleanor book of Anne Mowbray's hair. Red and in a long plait. How wonderful that her hair survived 500 years. Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Its while she was in the cook shop that she contracted the TB...the spit boy coughed in her face when he tried to get fresh...Comparing We Speak No Treason to anyone of PG's books is like comparing steak to beefburgers. How PG gets away with it I will never know...One lucky woman. Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To hell with the estates!' or something like that? You're right PG just isn't the same. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:44
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I love the part in We Speak No Treason where Richard finds her, in a dreadful state smelling of grease and onions..(I think? I might have made that bit up} and Patch fetches his horse and he tosses her on it wrapped in his cloak and then they both set of for St Martins.
> >
> > Later on when Richard questions his brother George feigns surprise and says "A chop-shop you say!...her brains must be addled" or something similar...Ah they dont write stuff like this any more....
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)
> > >
> > > Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Is he writing a book on George - didn't know that? I await it with enthusiasm. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on George. I think both brothers were after the Warwick lands and Anne being a rather more sensible person that she is often credited with being, realised she would have the best future with Richard. It's not beyond her, as Eileen says, to have made her own way to a cookshop and let Richard know. That's how I see it. Even Richard has his flaws and certainly one of these was his acquisitiveness .Putting her in St Martins wasn't just about chivalry but because not only were they awaiting a dispensation, they couldn't marry during Lent. I think Cis might have had some views had she been taken into Richard's household before marriage.   



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:48
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why? 

Carol responds:

Well, here's the Croyland chronicler's (or continuator's) version:

"After, as already stated, the son of king Henry, to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick, had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."

So the chronicler, at least, states that Clarence hid her from Gloucester because he didn't want to share the lands, and we know from (I think) the Paston letters that the part about not wanting to share is true ("he may have my lady, but they shall part no livelode"). We can substitute "cleverness" or "astuteness" for "craftiness" since our snide old chronicler doesn't like Richard, and it's certainly possible that he's supplying his own interpretation here as he did with the rumors about Richard's wanting to marry EoY. About all we can say with certainty is that, however improbable it seems, Richard did find Anne in a cookshop, either escaping from or hidden by George (either interpretation doesn't reflect creditably on George) and that Richard placed Anne in sanctuary (where she would be protected both from George and from gossip until the necessary arrangements could be made for their marriage, including the dispensation involving Edward of
Lancaster). Not even Croyland can make Richard appear anything other than chivalrous in this episode. But the fact that he found her at all suggests something more than "craftiness" (or, put more kindly, intelligence)--Anne must have found a way to inform him where she was. Otherwise, how could he ever have figured out where she was?

Interestingly, the chronicler credits both George and Richard with high intelligence and laments that they could not work together, one of the few judgments he makes with which I agree. (Of course, I think that most, though perhaps not all, of the difficulties were of George's making.)

It will be interesting to see what J A-H makes of all this when his new book on George comes out.

Carol

Yes I've seen that, it's very beautiful. Somewhere I read that all hair turns red after years in the grave, something to do with chemicals. Does anyone know anything about that, because it would seem that locks of hair cut off and preserved don't suffer from that effect?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:02
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

By the way...re Anne Mowbray...there is a photo in JA-H's Eleanor book of Anne Mowbray's hair. Red and in a long plait. How wonderful that her hair survived 500 years. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Its while she was in the cook shop that she contracted the TB...the spit boy coughed in her face when he tried to get fresh...Comparing We Speak No Treason to anyone of PG's books is like comparing steak to beefburgers. How PG gets away with it I will never know...One lucky woman. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To hell with the estates!' or something like that? You're right PG just isn't the same. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:44
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I love the part in We Speak No Treason where Richard finds her, in a dreadful state smelling of grease and onions..(I think? I might have made that bit up} and Patch fetches his horse and he tosses her on it wrapped in his cloak and then they both set of for St Martins.
> >
> > Later on when Richard questions his brother George feigns surprise and says "A chop-shop you say!...her brains must be addled" or something similar...Ah they dont write stuff like this any more....
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)
> > >
> > > Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Anne would have known that Richard was the perfect husband in that he was probably the only one who would have been able to protect her and her inheritance. No doubt she would have counted herself very fortunate in that she knew Richard from her childhood and was probably fond of him and as we now know he was a "bonny lad". Hicks spiteful pen casts a horrible perception of this situation, as we know in his book, which say more about him than it does about Richard or Anne....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Is he writing a book on George - didn't know that? I await it with enthusiasm. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on George. I think both brothers were after the Warwick lands and Anne being a rather more sensible person that she is often credited with being, realised she would have the best future with Richard. It's not beyond her, as Eileen says, to have made her own way to a cookshop and let Richard know. That's how I see it. Even Richard has his flaws and certainly one of these was his acquisitiveness .Putting her in St Martins wasn't just about chivalry but because not only were they awaiting a dispensation, they couldn't marry during Lent. I think Cis might have had some views had she been taken into Richard's household before marriage.   
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:48
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why? 
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Well, here's the Croyland chronicler's (or continuator's) version:
>
> "After, as already stated, the son of king Henry, to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick, had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."
>
> So the chronicler, at least, states that Clarence hid her from Gloucester because he didn't want to share the lands, and we know from (I think) the Paston letters that the part about not wanting to share is true ("he may have my lady, but they shall part no livelode"). We can substitute "cleverness" or "astuteness" for "craftiness" since our snide old chronicler doesn't like Richard, and it's certainly possible that he's supplying his own interpretation here as he did with the rumors about Richard's wanting to marry EoY. About all we can say with certainty is that, however improbable it seems, Richard did find Anne in a cookshop, either escaping from or hidden by George (either interpretation doesn't reflect creditably on George) and that Richard placed Anne in sanctuary (where she would be protected both from George and from gossip until the necessary arrangements could be made for their marriage, including the dispensation involving Edward of
> Lancaster). Not even Croyland can make Richard appear anything other than chivalrous in this episode. But the fact that he found her at all suggests something more than "craftiness" (or, put more kindly, intelligence)--Anne must have found a way to inform him where she was. Otherwise, how could he ever have figured out where she was?
>
> Interestingly, the chronicler credits both George and Richard with high intelligence and laments that they could not work together, one of the few judgments he makes with which I agree. (Of course, I think that most, though perhaps not all, of the difficulties were of George's making.)
>
> It will be interesting to see what J A-H makes of all this when his new book on George comes out.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Darling Pansy, don't we all have our ideas, aside from the " history" ? If we didn't, what would have happened to Richard, and the entire York Dynasty????

On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:05 PM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
>

That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)

Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)

I dont know Hilary..I vaguely remember something like that with some burials..ancient Eygptians maybe...it says in the book that the colour of Anne's hair was genuine but would have been darker in life. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I've seen that, it's very beautiful. Somewhere I read that all hair turns red after years in the grave, something to do with chemicals. Does anyone know anything about that, because it would seem that locks of hair cut off and preserved don't suffer from that effect?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:02
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> By the way...re Anne Mowbray...there is a photo in JA-H's Eleanor book of Anne Mowbray's hair. Red and in a long plait. How wonderful that her hair survived 500 years. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Its while she was in the cook shop that she contracted the TB...the spit boy coughed in her face when he tried to get fresh...Comparing We Speak No Treason to anyone of PG's books is like comparing steak to beefburgers. How PG gets away with it I will never know...One lucky woman. Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To hell with the estates!' or something like that? You're right PG just isn't the same. 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:44
> > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > I love the part in We Speak No Treason where Richard finds her, in a dreadful state smelling of grease and onions..(I think? I might have made that bit up} and Patch fetches his horse and he tosses her on it wrapped in his cloak and then they both set of for St Martins.
> > >
> > > Later on when Richard questions his brother George feigns surprise and says "A chop-shop you say!...her brains must be addled" or something similar...Ah they dont write stuff like this any more....
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)
> > > >
> > > > Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

He was an expert on the interpretation of Holbein paintings and had a quite famous theory that the princes survived as Lord Edward Guildford and Dr John Clement (who married More's step-daughter Meg Giggs). Falls over when you compare dates, but still intriguing. His theories on Eleanor (apart from her having a son by Edward whose dates are all wrong again) are worth considering, particularly around the relationship with her sister Elizabeth. The trouble with Leslau  (and Baldwin an R3 scholar does quote him) is that he takes his theories one step too far so it discredits everything he says, where actually some of it is quite creditable. Because he's died his website is down but it was well worth reading to try to tease out the truth from the fantasy. And I, and perhaps Baldwin, do think he may have struck on a grain of truth in there somewhere. Which is why I try to read everything, however daft it may seem.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:01
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Carol, I think both JAH and the oft-quoted Leslau refer to the fact that Elizabeth Talbot was both very intelligent and religious. I haven't got the book in front of me but I think some of the endowments at Cambridge (again without looking Gonville and Caius College) are in both their names and were instigated by Elizabeth. Leslau of course goes on to claim that Elizabeth and Eleanor were buried in the Minories (Eleanor not at Norwich but under an assumed name at the Minories) and that the latter did not die until 1495 which is when the first endowment to the college in her name appears. His reasoning for this is that Elizabeth chose to be buried in the Minories, rather than next to her daughter Anne in Westminster, or to her husband, and that the convenient death and burial of Eleanor in Norwich in 1468 was a cover-up when Edward was having problems with Warwick and Clarence. Always thought it would make a great historical thriller!!

Carol responds:

I've read J A-H and find him reasonably convincing (of course, it's hard to analyze what you're reading objectively if you *want* to agree with it). Leslau, however, I haven't read. His theories are just too far out to interest me. What are his credentials, do you know? I'm guessing that he's an art historian (analysis of Holbein), but I really don't know.

Carol

Even though he was a hunchback and walked with a stoop - Mark Ormrod. Sorry I couldn't resist that! When will we ever win??!!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

Anne would have known that Richard was the perfect husband in that he was probably the only one who would have been able to protect her and her inheritance. No doubt she would have counted herself very fortunate in that she knew Richard from her childhood and was probably fond of him and as we now know he was a "bonny lad". Hicks spiteful pen casts a horrible perception of this situation, as we know in his book, which say more about him than it does about Richard or Anne....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Is he writing a book on George - didn't know that? I await it with enthusiasm. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on George. I think both brothers were after the Warwick lands and Anne being a rather more sensible person that she is often credited with being, realised she would have the best future with Richard. It's not beyond her, as Eileen says, to have made her own way to a cookshop and let Richard know. That's how I see it. Even Richard has his flaws and certainly one of these was his acquisitiveness .Putting her in St Martins wasn't just about chivalry but because not only were they awaiting a dispensation, they couldn't marry during Lent. I think Cis might have had some views had she been taken into Richard's household before marriage.   
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:48
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why? 
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Well, here's the Croyland chronicler's (or continuator's) version:
>
> "After, as already stated, the son of king Henry, to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick, had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."
>
> So the chronicler, at least, states that Clarence hid her from Gloucester because he didn't want to share the lands, and we know from (I think) the Paston letters that the part about not wanting to share is true ("he may have my lady, but they shall part no livelode"). We can substitute "cleverness" or "astuteness" for "craftiness" since our snide old chronicler doesn't like Richard, and it's certainly possible that he's supplying his own interpretation here as he did with the rumors about Richard's wanting to marry EoY. About all we can say with certainty is that, however improbable it seems, Richard did find Anne in a cookshop, either escaping from or hidden by George (either interpretation doesn't reflect creditably on George) and that Richard placed Anne in sanctuary (where she would be protected both from George and from gossip until the necessary arrangements could be made for their marriage, including the dispensation involving Edward of
> Lancaster). Not even Croyland can make Richard appear anything other than chivalrous in this episode. But the fact that he found her at all suggests something more than "craftiness" (or, put more kindly, intelligence)--Anne must have found a way to inform him where she was. Otherwise, how could he ever have figured out where she was?
>
> Interestingly, the chronicler credits both George and Richard with high intelligence and laments that they could not work together, one of the few judgments he makes with which I agree. (Of course, I think that most, though perhaps not all, of the difficulties were of George's making.)
>
> It will be interesting to see what J A-H makes of all this when his new book on George comes out.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would
> love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a
> runner and hid in the cookshop...

Yeah, me too. Her subsequent failure to have more than one child probably
means she was a bit uncertain in the gynae department, maybe had very
irregular periods etc., so my theory is she couldn't tell whether she was
pregnant or not and she was afraid Edward or George might do her in if she
turned out to be carrying a Lnacastrian heir, so she did a runner.

That's probably it. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. And there are quite a few references to opening coffins where the hair is still blond - one was that of Mary, E4 and EW's daughter who was described as having long blond hair which actually got trapped in the coffin lid - another fact which makes it sound true (and how sad). 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:27
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

I dont know Hilary..I vaguely remember something like that with some burials..ancient Eygptians maybe...it says in the book that the colour of Anne's hair was genuine but would have been darker in life. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I've seen that, it's very beautiful. Somewhere I read that all hair turns red after years in the grave, something to do with chemicals. Does anyone know anything about that, because it would seem that locks of hair cut off and preserved don't suffer from that effect?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:02
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> By the way...re Anne Mowbray...there is a photo in JA-H's Eleanor book of Anne Mowbray's hair. Red and in a long plait. How wonderful that her hair survived 500 years. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Its while she was in the cook shop that she contracted the TB...the spit boy coughed in her face when he tried to get fresh...Comparing We Speak No Treason to anyone of PG's books is like comparing steak to beefburgers. How PG gets away with it I will never know...One lucky woman. Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To hell with theàestates!' or something like that? You're right PGàjust isn't the same.à
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:44
> > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > >
> > > I love the part in We Speak No Treason where Richard finds her, in a dreadful state smelling of grease and onions..(I think? I might have made that bit up} and Patch fetches his horse and he tosses her on it wrapped in his cloak and then they both set of for St Martins.
> > >
> > > Later on when Richard questions his brother George feigns surprise and says "A chop-shop you say!...her brains must be addled" or something similar...Ah they dont write stuff like this any more....
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)
> > > >
> > > > Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He was an expert on the interpretation of Holbein paintings and had a quite famous theory that the princes survived as Lord Edward Guildford and Dr John Clement (who married More's step-daughter Meg Giggs). Falls over when you compare dates, but still intriguing. His theories on Eleanor (apart from her having a son by Edward whose dates are all wrong again) are worth considering, particularly around the relationship with her sister Elizabeth. The trouble with Leslau  (and Baldwin an R3 scholar does quote him) is that he takes his theories one step too far so it discredits everything he says, where actually some of it is quite creditable. Because he's died his website is down but it was well worth reading to try to tease out the truth from the fantasy. And I, and perhaps Baldwin, do think he may have struck on a grain of truth in there somewhere. Which is why I try to read everything, however daft it may seem.

Carol responds:

I know about his daft theory, which is too esoteric (or, at least, too far-fetched) for my taste. Someone (can't recall author or title; I read only the free sample on Kindle) has made it into a novel with, if I recall correctly, Sir Thomas More relating the "true" story (favorable to Richard as far as I got) to Hans Holbein. (If anyone knows the novel I'm talking about, feel free to correct me or fill in the blanks for me.)

But, anyway, you can actually access Leslau's site through the Wayback Machine, which takes you back to sites no longer on the Internet. Here's the link for Leslau's: http://web.archive.org/web/20120207030608/http://www.holbeinartworks.org/ And there's a note on the old site, http://www.holbeinartworks.org/, saying that it will be restored within the next twelve months--another consequence of Richard III mania?

Carol

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Is he writing a book on George - didn't know that? I await it with enthusiasm. [snip]

Carol responds:

He talks a bit about it in the interview that someone (sorry, I don't remember who) linked to a few posts back. Here's a snippet:

"Q3. Could you tell us more about this book? George is often in the shadows between the glamour of Edward IV and the tragedy of Richard III.

"A. Well, there has only been one study of George, really, and that was written some years ago, by Michael Hicks. It dealt with George as a magnate. I'm trying more to get at George as a human being â€" exploring what sort of personality he had â€" and also why he became that kind of man. As I tried to do with Richard, I'd like to get at the real George."

http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html

You're right that we'll just have to agree to disagree about George (and about Richard's ostensible acquisitiveness). I'm also looking forward to the book on George.

And here's a what if for everyone. Imagine that George hadn't been executed or even attainted. Imagine what would have happened when Edward died with George as next in line after the not-yet illegitimized princes, especially if Richard had been appointed Protector in Edward's will over George's head.

King George I, reputed to be England's most evil king?

Carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray



> Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To
> hell with the estates!' or something like that?

"The devil fly away with the estates!" I've always thought that the
conversation at that point would have gone

Her: "You mean George fly away with them."
Him: "It comes to much the same thing."

That's a point. If they hadnt done her in then they certainly would have the little sprog. Eileen


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
> > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would
> > love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a
> > runner and hid in the cookshop...
>
> Yeah, me too. Her subsequent failure to have more than one child probably
> means she was a bit uncertain in the gynae department, maybe had very
> irregular periods etc., so my theory is she couldn't tell whether she was
> pregnant or not and she was afraid Edward or George might do her in if she
> turned out to be carrying a Lnacastrian heir, so she did a runner.
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> Yes I've seen that, it's very beautiful. Somewhere I read that all hair
> turns red after years in the grave, something to do with chemicals. Does
> anyone know anything about that, because it would seem that locks of hair
> cut off and preserved don't suffer from that effect?

I know it happens to humans, and mammoths, who are preserved in peat or
other acid conditions.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> Anne would have known that Richard was the perfect husband in that he was
> probably the only one who would have been able to protect her and her
> inheritance. No doubt she would have counted herself very fortunate in
> that she knew Richard from her childhood and was probably fond of him and
> as we now know he was a "bonny lad".

An whether they were actually in love or not they presumably knew that the
other was somebody they could contemplate spending a lot of time with
without wanting to run away screaming.

No King George - the first king in rehab :) (Warwickshire loved him)



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:54
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Is he writing a book on George - didn't know that? I await it with enthusiasm. [snip]

Carol responds:

He talks a bit about it in the interview that someone (sorry, I don't remember who) linked to a few posts back. Here's a snippet:

"Q3. Could you tell us more about this book? George is often in the shadows between the glamour of Edward IV and the tragedy of Richard III.

"A. Well, there has only been one study of George, really, and that was written some years ago, by Michael Hicks. It dealt with George as a magnate. I'm trying more to get at George as a human being â¬" exploring what sort of personality he had â¬" and also why he became that kind of man. As I tried to do with Richard, I'd like to get at the real George."

http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html

You're right that we'll just have to agree to disagree about George (and about Richard's ostensible acquisitiveness). I'm also looking forward to the book on George.

And here's a what if for everyone. Imagine that George hadn't been executed or even attainted. Imagine what would have happened when Edward died with George as next in line after the not-yet illegitimized princes, especially if Richard had been appointed Protector in Edward's will over George's head.

King George I, reputed to be England's most evil king?

Carol

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> By the way...re Anne Mowbray...there is a photo in JA-H's Eleanor book of Anne Mowbray's hair. Red and in a long plait. How wonderful that her hair survived 500 years. Eileen

Carol responds:

It's not in my Kindle edition, unfortunately. One more reason to buy real books!

Carol

Poor old George, as maligned and misunderstood as little brother! 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 23:06
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

> Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To
> hell with the estates!' or something like that?

"The devil fly away with the estates!" I've always thought that the
conversation at that point would have gone

Her: "You mean George fly away with them."
Him: "It comes to much the same thing."

I read that the other day...where? What I find sad about poor Princess Mary was that I read in the Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor..Sutton and Visser-Fuchs..that there is confusion about her date of death which could have been either Monday 20 May or Thursday 23 May at Greenwich. " Edward lV was at Canterbury on 17th May and back in London on the 23 May and *may* have seen his dying daughter in between those dates"
*May*...!? Does this mean he could have visited Mary, known her death was imminent but not have stayed.. Or maybe he didnt bother.... Heartless...really heartless...Different story when Anne Neville was dying and Richard did not stray from Westminster for nearly 3 months except for a couple of visits to Windsor...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
EW's daughter who was described as having long blond hair which actually got trapped in the coffin lid - another fact which makes it sound true (and how sad). 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:27
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> I dont know Hilary..I vaguely remember something like that with some burials..ancient Eygptians maybe...it says in the book that the colour of Anne's hair was genuine but would have been darker in life. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I've seen that, it's very beautiful. Somewhere I read that all hair turns red after years in the grave, something to do with chemicals. Does anyone know anything about that, because it would seem that locks of hair cut off and preserved don't suffer from that effect?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:02
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > By the way...re Anne Mowbray...there is a photo in JA-H's Eleanor book of Anne Mowbray's hair. Red and in a long plait. How wonderful that her hair survived 500 years. Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Its while she was in the cook shop that she contracted the TB...the spit boy coughed in her face when he tried to get fresh...Comparing We Speak No Treason to anyone of PG's books is like comparing steak to beefburgers. How PG gets away with it I will never know...One lucky woman. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To hell with the estates!' or something like that? You're right PG just isn't the same. 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:44
> > > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > I love the part in We Speak No Treason where Richard finds her, in a dreadful state smelling of grease and onions..(I think? I might have made that bit up} and Patch fetches his horse and he tosses her on it wrapped in his cloak and then they both set of for St Martins.
> > > >
> > > > Later on when Richard questions his brother George feigns surprise and says "A chop-shop you say!...her brains must be addled" or something similar...Ah they dont write stuff like this any more....
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

You can picture him..as a small boy...or teenager even..in a strop..red with anger "Im going down to the bottom of the garden to eat worms...so there!"

I can empathise with him..as a child I always felt like I was picked on and unloved by the rest of the family....Ahhhh Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Poor old George, as maligned and misunderstood as little brother! 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 23:06
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
> > Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To
> > hell with the estates!' or something like that?
>
> "The devil fly away with the estates!" I've always thought that the
> conversation at that point would have gone
>
> Her: "You mean George fly away with them."
> Him: "It comes to much the same thing."
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's Vanora Bennett 'Portrait of an Unknown Woman', don't know why it wasn't of an unknown man. She also did one on Richard having affair with sister of Jane Shore in 'Figures in Silk'. I actually like Leslau's interpretations of Richard's pictures even though it may be pure fantasy. I'm an idiot, I read everything in the hope I may one day stumble on something which contains a grain of truth. Thanks for the new link. H 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:43
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 


Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He was an expert on the interpretation of Holbein paintings and had a quite famous theory that the princes survived as Lord Edward Guildford and Dr John Clement (who married More's step-daughter Meg Giggs). Falls over when you compare dates, but still intriguing. His theories on Eleanor (apart from her having a son by Edward whose dates are all wrong again) are worth considering, particularly around the relationship with her sister Elizabeth. The trouble with Leslau  (and Baldwin an R3 scholar does quote him) is that he takes his theories one step too far so it discredits everything he says, where actually some of it is quite creditable. Because he's died his website is down but it was well worth reading to try to tease out the truth from the fantasy. And I, and perhaps Baldwin, do think he may have struck on a grain of truth in there somewhere. Which is why I try to read everything, however daft it may seem.

Carol responds:

I know about his daft theory, which is too esoteric (or, at least, too far-fetched) for my taste. Someone (can't recall author or title; I read only the free sample on Kindle) has made it into a novel with, if I recall correctly, Sir Thomas More relating the "true" story (favorable to Richard as far as I got) to Hans Holbein. (If anyone knows the novel I'm talking about, feel free to correct me or fill in the blanks for me.)

But, anyway, you can actually access Leslau's site through the Wayback Machine, which takes you back to sites no longer on the Internet. Here's the link for Leslau's: http://web.archive.org/web/20120207030608/http://www.holbeinartworks.org/ And there's a note on the old site, http://www.holbeinartworks.org/, saying that it will be restored within the next twelve months--another consequence of Richard III mania?

Carol

Thats a shame...Its the only place I have seen this photo in..Ive tried googling it to no avail. I wonder where JA-H got it from..Maybe the London Museum...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > By the way...re Anne Mowbray...there is a photo in JA-H's Eleanor book of Anne Mowbray's hair. Red and in a long plait. How wonderful that her hair survived 500 years. Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's not in my Kindle edition, unfortunately. One more reason to buy real books!
>
> Carol
>

You can retrieve Leslau's webpages from the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org
).

A J

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> He was an expert on the interpretation of Holbein paintings and had a
> quite famous theory that the princes survived as Lord Edward Guildford and
> Dr John Clement (who married More's step-daughter Meg Giggs). Falls over
> when you compare dates, but still intriguing. His theories on Eleanor
> (apart from her having a son by Edward whose dates are all wrong again) are
> worth considering, particularly around the relationship with her sister
> Elizabeth. The trouble with Leslau (and Baldwin an R3 scholar does quote
> him) is that he takes his theories one step too far so it discredits
> everything he says, where actually some of it is quite creditable. Because
> he's died his website is down but it was well worth reading to try to tease
> out the truth from the fantasy. And I, and perhaps Baldwin, do think he may
> have struck on a grain of truth in there somewhere. Which is why I try to
> read everything, however daft it may seem.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:01
>
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Carol, I think both JAH and the oft-quoted Leslau refer to the fact that
> Elizabeth Talbot was both very intelligent and religious. I haven't got the
> book in front of me but I think some of the endowments at Cambridge (again
> without looking Gonville and Caius College) are in both their namesý and
> were instigated by Elizabeth. Leslau of course goes oný to claim that
> Elizabeth and Eleanor were buried in the Minories (Eleanor not at Norwich
> but under an assumed name at the Minories) and that the latter did not die
> until 1495 which is when the first endowment to the college in her name
> appears. His reasoning for this is that Elizabeth chose to be buried in the
> Minories, rather than next to her daughter Anne in Westminster, or to her
> husband, and that the convenient death and burial of Eleanor in Norwich in
> 1468 was a cover-up when Edward was having problems with Warwick and
> Clarence. Always thought it would make a great historical thriller!!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I've read J A-H and find him reasonably convincing (of course, it's hard
> to analyze what you're reading objectively if you *want* to agree with it).
> Leslau, however, I haven't read. His theories are just too far out to
> interest me. What are his credentials, do you know? I'm guessing that he's
> an art historian (analysis of Holbein), but I really don't know.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>

The one who seemed to really love him was Margaret. And then she went away. Poor George, neither golden Edward, nor cute little brother. 

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 23:11
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


 

You can picture him..as a small boy...or teenager even..in a strop..red with anger "Im going down to the bottom of the garden to eat worms...so there!"

I can empathise with him..as a child I always felt like I was picked on and unloved by the rest of the family....Ahhhh Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Poor old George, as maligned and misunderstood as little brother! 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 23:06
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
> > Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To
> > hell with the estates!' or something like that?
>
> "The devil fly away with the estates!" I've always thought that the
> conversation at that point would have gone
>
> Her: "You mean George fly away with them."
> Him: "It comes to much the same thing."
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> The one who seemed to really love him was Margaret. And then she went
> away. Poor George, neither golden Edward, nor cute little brother.

I've always felt that part of what was going on with those three was that
each of them was trying to find Edmund in the other two - and not
succeeding.

Carol earlier:

> [snip] And there's a note on the old site, http://www.holbeinartworks.org/, saying that it will be restored within the next twelve months--another consequence of Richard III mania?

Carol again:

Sorry about that. It didn't link because Yahoo included the comma as part of the URL. Let me try again: http://www.holbeinartworks.org/

Carol

Unless she ran off incognito and told no one where she was going just so's George couldn't find her and stick her in a nunnery. In that case, Richard would have quite a task to find her. If that's what happened (and I believe that's Sharon Kay Penman's novelistic version), that makes her really determined to get the hell away from the powerful man using her as a pawn, and makes Richard really determined to find her.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly Hilary...Is George supposed to have forced her to change into a cookshop maid's probably smelly attire...that makes no sense because as soon as he left she would have taken them off...on the other hand if he had not forced her and she was willing to hide there to escape Richard why did she end up allowing him to rescue her and take her to St Martins...This version of the story makes no sense...Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So you and I think the same on this too Eileen!! Why on earth would the Duke of Clarence consort with cookshop owners; why not have her sent to some convent in the country (like Eleanor) or off to favourite sister Meg?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:38
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
> > >  
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> > >
> > > Claire responded:
> > > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
> > >
> > > Carol again:
> > >
> > > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that he
> > > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I would have immediately created a t-shirt that said BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CHARACTER IDEAL FOR SLAPPING.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Poor old George...if he had lived today he could have got a t-shirt printed with "WHY ME?'
> on the front...Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why? 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:49
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I don't know if this incident really happened but I love it! Such a Cinderella-esq story.......I know it's not very scholarly of me to indulge in this story ( says timidly).
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> > > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> > > >
> > > > Claire responded:
> > > > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
> > > >
> > > > Carol again:
> > > >
> > > > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that
> > he
> > > > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Yeah, see? A plausible lie. Something. Anything. Why use the name of a member of an illustrious family?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
> > Any dead woman--ANY dead woman--would have done nicely for the purpose.
> > "He married a young fisherwoman/brewster/housemaid he'd taken a fancy to,
> > and he bullied the Bishop into performing the ceremony. Her name was...
> > um.. Bridget. Or Kate. Or possibly Frances. I'd ask, but she suffered a
> > tragic fatal accident involving a spinning wheel. Or possibly it was
> > typhoid. Or eels. Anyway, she's dead now. So, so sad."
>
> Better yet, if he was going to make it up he could have claimed that Edward
> had married somebody on the continent while he was in exile, thus making it
> impossible to check the parish records.
>

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's Vanora Bennett 'Portrait of an Unknown Woman', don't know why it wasn't of an unknown man. She also did one on Richard having affair with sister of Jane Shore in 'Figures in Silk'. I actually like Leslau's interpretations of Richard's pictures even though it may be pure fantasy. I'm an idiot, I read everything in the hope I may one day stumble on something which contains a grain of truth. Thanks for the new link. H 

Carol responds:

Hm. That's not the book I was thinking of. I sampled "Figures in Silk" on Google Books and thought it was well written but her Richard seemed slightly sinister and the time frame seemed off, not to mention the whole concept of Richard having an affair with "Jane" Shore's imaginary sister, apparently while he was married, was too much for me to swallow--or stomach. You're not an idiot for reading everything; you probably just have more patience than I do with nonsense like Desmond Seward's "England's Black Legend"--or utterly improbable fictional scenarios.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> I've always felt that part of what was going on with those three was that each of them was trying to find Edmund in the other two - and not succeeding.
>
Carol responds:

Interesting. i really like that idea. But how well did George know Edmund? The older boys left for Ludlow when they were what? Ten and eleven? George would have been about four and Richard only about a year old. (I could have the ages wrong, but I don't think I'm far off.) From the letters that Caroline Halsted published, Edmund and Edward appear to have been close (in affection as well as age) whereas Margaret, George, and Richard as children made another little group, close in affection but with a largish gap between big sister and little brothers, who weren't quite as close in age as Edward and Edmund and were perhaps very different personalities from an early age.

But Edward looking for Edmund in George, especially if he resembled him physically, makes a lot of sense (like Richard looking for George in Buckingham).

If only Edmund had survived, how different all their lives would have been.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> (like Richard looking for George in Buckingham).

And he *found* him - ouch. A moment's thought should have told him that
looking for a match for a brother whose principal characteristics had been
unreliability, ambition, acquisitiveness and paranoia was a bad idea. It
must have been very bitterly ironic when he had to kill him.

I suppose George's acquisitiveness also sprang from insecurity, since he had
suffered all the same disruptions and traumas as Richard, albeit at a
slightly older age.

Henry, too. He'd been born without a father, then taken from his mother
when only a baby and sent into a foreign country with his uncle. When he
was four he learned that his grandfather's head had been cut off and stuck
on a spike, and his uncle ran off and left him to be hunted around Wales by
the force that had killed his grandfather. Then a miracle happened, the
Yorkist official who captured him turned out to be a kind man who became the
father-figure he'd never had, but then this kindly foster-father was also
executed. It's small wonder if he was desperate for security, but being of
a somewhat grimmer and more wholesale turn of mind than Richard he dealt
with it by making sure that *he* was the law and all power rested in him.

I suppose people who think Richard was a usurper will think that he was
doing the same - but the evidence strongly suggests that the pre-contract
story was real and that Richard had kingship thrust upon him.

Or "all I got was this lousy tee shirt" and not the throne!

On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:37 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Poor old George...if he had lived today he could have got a t-shirt printed with "WHY ME?'
on the front...Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why?ý
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:49
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
> ý
>
> I don't know if this incident really happened but I love it! Such a Cinderella-esq story.......I know it's not very scholarly of me to indulge in this story ( says timidly).
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
> > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
> > > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
> > >
> > > Claire responded:
> > > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
> > >
> > > Carol again:
> > >
> > > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that
> he
> > > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary, You are right. It is so improbable that it might have happened!
Carol, that Croyland dude could not even let pass an act of chivalry without inserting a word like " craftiness"!
I also agree that without getting some sort of message from Anne, Richard had very little chance of finding her. Unless he did a house to house search all over London. Maybe he cared enough to actually do something like that and hence Croyland's use of " craftiness?" Oh how I hate that word!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 16, 2013, at 5:48 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Well, here's the Croyland chronicler's (or continuator's) version:
>
> "After, as already stated, the son of king Henry, to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick, had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."
>
> So the chronicler, at least, states that Clarence hid her from Gloucester because he didn't want to share the lands, and we know from (I think) the Paston letters that the part about not wanting to share is true ("he may have my lady, but they shall part no livelode"). We can substitute "cleverness" or "astuteness" for "craftiness" since our snide old chronicler doesn't like Richard, and it's certainly possible that he's supplying his own interpretation here as he did with the rumors about Richard's wanting to marry EoY. About all we can say with certainty is that, however improbable it seems, Richard did find Anne in a cookshop, either escaping from or hidden by George (either interpretation doesn't reflect creditably on George) and that Richard placed Anne in sanctuary (where she would be protected both from George and from gossip until the necessary arrangements could be made for their marriage, including the dispensation involving Edward of Lancaster). Not even Croyland can make Richard appear anything other than chivalrous in this episode. But the fact that he found her at all suggests something more than "craftiness" (or, put more kindly, intelligence)--Anne must have found a way to inform him where she was. Otherwise, how could he ever have figured out where she was?
>
> Interestingly, the chronicler credits both George and Richard with high intelligence and laments that they could not work together, one of the few judgments he makes with which I agree. (Of course, I think that most, though perhaps not all, of the difficulties were of George's making.)
>
> It will be interesting to see what J A-H makes of all this when his new book on George comes out.
>
> Carol
>
>

I also liked the version in Under the Hog. Very understated but touching. Also in Seventh Son, Tanahill has Anne tidy her hair when she sees R! Very pragmatic.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 16, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Yes, it was grease and onions. And didn't Richard grab her and say 'To hell with the estates!' or something like that? You're right PG just isn't the same.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:44
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>
>
> I love the part in We Speak No Treason where Richard finds her, in a dreadful state smelling of grease and onions..(I think? I might have made that bit up} and Patch fetches his horse and he tosses her on it wrapped in his cloak and then they both set of for St Martins.
>
> Later on when Richard questions his brother George feigns surprise and says "A chop-shop you say!...her brains must be addled" or something similar...Ah they dont write stuff like this any more....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
> > >
> >
> >
> > That's my pet theory as well. Oh how I love Anne. (Well, *my own idea* of Anne, that is. For all we know, she might have been a shrew from hell or a featherbrained little miss...)
> >
> > Who knows, perhaps a maid helped Anne escape, and she and Richard just agreed to meet up at the cookshop around the corner or something, and the story got twisted along the way. But I like to think it was more fun and complicated than that ;)
> >
>
>
>
>

What "does" Hicks actually say? I don't want to give my money to him so never actually bought the book!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 16, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Even though he was a hunchback and walked with a stoop - Mark Ormrod. Sorry I couldn't resist that! When will we ever win??!!
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:20
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>
>
> Anne would have known that Richard was the perfect husband in that he was probably the only one who would have been able to protect her and her inheritance. No doubt she would have counted herself very fortunate in that she knew Richard from her childhood and was probably fond of him and as we now know he was a "bonny lad". Hicks spiteful pen casts a horrible perception of this situation, as we know in his book, which say more about him than it does about Richard or Anne....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > Is he writing a book on George - didn't know that? I await it with enthusiasm. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on George. I think both brothers were after the Warwick lands and Anne being a rather more sensible person that she is often credited with being, realised she would have the best future with Richard. It's not beyond her, as Eileen says, to have made her own way to a cookshop and let Richard know. That's how I see it. Even Richard has his flaws and certainly one of these was his acquisitiveness .Putting her in St Martins wasn't just about chivalry but because not only were they awaiting a dispensation, they couldn't marry during Lent. I think Cis might have had some views had she been taken into Richard's household before marriage.  Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:48
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why?Â
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Well, here's the Croyland chronicler's (or continuator's) version:
> >
> > "After, as already stated, the son of king Henry, to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick, had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."
> >
> > So the chronicler, at least, states that Clarence hid her from Gloucester because he didn't want to share the lands, and we know from (I think) the Paston letters that the part about not wanting to share is true ("he may have my lady, but they shall part no livelode"). We can substitute "cleverness" or "astuteness" for "craftiness" since our snide old chronicler doesn't like Richard, and it's certainly possible that he's supplying his own interpretation here as he did with the rumors about Richard's wanting to marry EoY. About all we can say with certainty is that, however improbable it seems, Richard did find Anne in a cookshop, either escaping from or hidden by George (either interpretation doesn't reflect creditably on George) and that Richard placed Anne in sanctuary (where she would be protected both from George and from gossip until the necessary arrangements could be made for their marriage, including the dispensation involving Edward of
> > Lancaster). Not even Croyland can make Richard appear anything other than chivalrous in this episode. But the fact that he found her at all suggests something more than "craftiness" (or, put more kindly, intelligence)--Anne must have found a way to inform him where she was. Otherwise, how could he ever have figured out where she was?
> >
> > Interestingly, the chronicler credits both George and Richard with high intelligence and laments that they could not work together, one of the few judgments he makes with which I agree. (Of course, I think that most, though perhaps not all, of the difficulties were of George's making.)
> >
> > It will be interesting to see what J A-H makes of all this when his new book on George comes out.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

> I also agree that without getting some sort of message from Anne, Richard
> had very little chance of finding her.

I think that depends on how good an actress (and pastry cook) she was - she
might have stuck out like a sore thumb. And London was much, much smaller
then.

> Unless he did a house to house search all over London. Maybe he cared
> enough to actually do something like that and hence Croyland's use of "
> craftiness?" Oh how I hate that word!!

Nothing wrong with being a bit crafty!

It's just the word crafty smacks of something devious. Richard was many things but was he devious? Of course in Croyland's version of events( any event actually) R is the very devil.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:22 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
> > I also agree that without getting some sort of message from Anne, Richard
> > had very little chance of finding her.
>
> I think that depends on how good an actress (and pastry cook) she was - she
> might have stuck out like a sore thumb. And London was much, much smaller
> then.
>
> > Unless he did a house to house search all over London. Maybe he cared
> > enough to actually do something like that and hence Croyland's use of "
> > craftiness?" Oh how I hate that word!!
>
> Nothing wrong with being a bit crafty!
>
>

The free book on kindle was Loyalty Bound. Here More tells the story to Holbien and explains his writing that ridiculous story to protect the prince......... It's still free.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 16, 2013, at 6:43 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > He was an expert on the interpretation of Holbein paintings and had a quite famous theory that the princes survived as Lord Edward Guildford and Dr John Clement (who married More's step-daughter Meg Giggs). Falls over when you compare dates, but still intriguing. His theories on Eleanor (apart from her having a son by Edward whose dates are all wrong again) are worth considering, particularly around the relationship with her sister Elizabeth. The trouble with Leslau (and Baldwin an R3 scholar does quote him) is that he takes his theories one step too far so it discredits everything he says, where actually some of it is quite creditable. Because he's died his website is down but it was well worth reading to try to tease out the truth from the fantasy. And I, and perhaps Baldwin, do think he may have struck on a grain of truth in there somewhere. Which is why I try to read everything, however daft it may seem.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I know about his daft theory, which is too esoteric (or, at least, too far-fetched) for my taste. Someone (can't recall author or title; I read only the free sample on Kindle) has made it into a novel with, if I recall correctly, Sir Thomas More relating the "true" story (favorable to Richard as far as I got) to Hans Holbein. (If anyone knows the novel I'm talking about, feel free to correct me or fill in the blanks for me.)
>
> But, anyway, you can actually access Leslau's site through the Wayback Machine, which takes you back to sites no longer on the Internet. Here's the link for Leslau's: http://web.archive.org/web/20120207030608/http://www.holbeinartworks.org/ And there's a note on the old site, http://www.holbeinartworks.org/, saying that it will be restored within the next twelve months--another consequence of Richard III mania?
>
> Carol
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> It's just the word crafty smacks of something devious. Richard was many
> things but was he devious?

Well - if he spirited his nephews away alive he evidently made a very good
job of it, which suggests that he was open because he was honest rather than
guileless, and that he could be devious in a good cause when he needed to
be.

That's giving his craftiness a positive bent. I like that!
But our friend Croyland Chronicler was using the word in a negative way. I think.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:40 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
> > It's just the word crafty smacks of something devious. Richard was many
> > things but was he devious?
>
> Well - if he spirited his nephews away alive he evidently made a very good
> job of it, which suggests that he was open because he was honest rather than
> guileless, and that he could be devious in a good cause when he needed to
> be.
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> That's giving his craftiness a positive bent. I like that!
But our friend Croyland Chronicler was using the word in a negative way. I
think.

I'm not sure if he was or not. To be craft-y originally meant to have
craft, in the sense of being skillful. I don't know when it started to have
negative associations.

It seems like everyone in the upper tier of society "then" was crafty. I suppose you had to be to survive....

On Mar 16, 2013, at 10:21 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



It's just the word crafty smacks of something devious. Richard was many things but was he devious? Of course in Croyland's version of events( any event actually) R is the very devil.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:22 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
> > I also agree that without getting some sort of message from Anne, Richard
> > had very little chance of finding her.
>
> I think that depends on how good an actress (and pastry cook) she was - she
> might have stuck out like a sore thumb. And London was much, much smaller
> then.
>
> > Unless he did a house to house search all over London. Maybe he cared
> > enough to actually do something like that and hence Croyland's use of "
> > craftiness?" Oh how I hate that word!!
>
> Nothing wrong with being a bit crafty!
>
>

WORLD NEWS ORGANIZATIONS: The intact skeleton of King Richard III has been found, and although the skeleton shows evidence of scoliosis, there is no indication of hunchback or deformation to the arm.

EVERY ANTI-RICARDIAN WHOSE DEMONIZATIONS HAVE APPEARED IN PRINT: Oh, crap.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Even though he was a hunchback and walked with a stoop - Mark Ormrod. Sorry I couldn't resist that! When will we ever win??!!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:20
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
>  
>
> Anne would have known that Richard was the perfect husband in that he was probably the only one who would have been able to protect her and her inheritance. No doubt she would have counted herself very fortunate in that she knew Richard from her childhood and was probably fond of him and as we now know he was a "bonny lad". Hicks spiteful pen casts a horrible perception of this situation, as we know in his book, which say more about him than it does about Richard or Anne....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Is he writing a book on George - didn't know that? I await it with enthusiasm. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on George. I think both brothers were after the Warwick lands and Anne being a rather more sensible person that she is often credited with being, realised she would have the best future with Richard. It's not beyond her, as Eileen says, to have made her own way to a cookshop and let Richard know. That's how I see it. Even Richard has his flaws and certainly one of these was his acquisitiveness .Putting her in St Martins wasn't just about chivalry but because not only were they awaiting a dispensation, they couldn't marry during Lent. I think Cis might have had some views had she been taken into Richard's household before marriage.   
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:48
> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > It's one of those things which are so odd I believe it happened Ishita. Otherwise why make it up - Clarence trying to conceal her, perhaps, yes. But cookshop - why? 
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Well, here's the Croyland chronicler's (or continuator's) version:
> >
> > "After, as already stated, the son of king Henry, to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick, had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."
> >
> > So the chronicler, at least, states that Clarence hid her from Gloucester because he didn't want to share the lands, and we know from (I think) the Paston letters that the part about not wanting to share is true ("he may have my lady, but they shall part no livelode"). We can substitute "cleverness" or "astuteness" for "craftiness" since our snide old chronicler doesn't like Richard, and it's certainly possible that he's supplying his own interpretation here as he did with the rumors about Richard's wanting to marry EoY. About all we can say with certainty is that, however improbable it seems, Richard did find Anne in a cookshop, either escaping from or hidden by George (either interpretation doesn't reflect creditably on George) and that Richard placed Anne in sanctuary (where she would be protected both from George and from gossip until the necessary arrangements could be made for their marriage, including the dispensation involving Edward of
> > Lancaster). Not even Croyland can make Richard appear anything other than chivalrous in this episode. But the fact that he found her at all suggests something more than "craftiness" (or, put more kindly, intelligence)--Anne must have found a way to inform him where she was. Otherwise, how could he ever have figured out where she was?
> >
> > Interestingly, the chronicler credits both George and Richard with high intelligence and laments that they could not work together, one of the few judgments he makes with which I agree. (Of course, I think that most, though perhaps not all, of the difficulties were of George's making.)
> >
> > It will be interesting to see what J A-H makes of all this when his new book on George comes out.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, that fascinating theory that the arrangement of the fingers and rings in the Richard portraits is a symbolic representation of the dynastic situation that led to him taking the throne. It was an age in which visual symbolism was ubiquitous and powerful. I'm just not certain how safe it would be for the artist to lay it all out there like that, especially if the people of that time would find it as easy to interpret as Leslau appears to believe they would.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

{SNIP}

I actually like Leslau's interpretations of Richard's pictures even though it may be pure fantasy.

{SNIP}

Of course the most famous picture for this is The Ambassadors. In another life I once had to study allegorical 16th century art and nearly everything in a picture did have meaning. As I said to Carol I just think sometimes Leslau pushes things that bit too far and discredits some of the very good things he says.


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 13:52
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

Yes, that fascinating theory that the arrangement of the fingers and rings in the Richard portraits is a symbolic representation of the dynastic situation that led to him taking the throne. It was an age in which visual symbolism was ubiquitous and powerful. I'm just not certain how safe it would be for the artist to lay it all out there like that, especially if the people of that time would find it as easy to interpret as Leslau appears to believe they would.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

{SNIP}

I actually like Leslau's interpretations of Richard's pictures even though it may be pure fantasy.

{SNIP}

No Hilary you are not an idiot, reading everything is the only way that we will find all the grains of truth and then we may be able to put some of them together to find out what possibly did happen from 1483 to 1485. I think it is good that we are "brainstorming" on this forum. It is certainly making me think about things and I am learning more when people give out bits of information that they have read.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's Vanora Bennett 'Portrait of an Unknown Woman', don't know why it wasn't of an unknown man. She also did one on Richard having affair with sister of Jane Shore in 'Figures in Silk'. I actually like Leslau's interpretations of Richard's pictures even though it may be pure fantasy. I'm an idiot, I read everything in the hope I may one day stumble on something which contains a grain of truth. Thanks for the new link. H 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:43
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>  
>
>
> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > He was an expert on the interpretation of Holbein paintings and had a quite famous theory that the princes survived as Lord Edward Guildford and Dr John Clement (who married More's step-daughter Meg Giggs). Falls over when you compare dates, but still intriguing. His theories on Eleanor (apart from her having a son by Edward whose dates are all wrong again) are worth considering, particularly around the relationship with her sister Elizabeth. The trouble with Leslau  (and Baldwin an R3 scholar does quote him) is that he takes his theories one step too far so it discredits everything he says, where actually some of it is quite creditable. Because he's died his website is down but it was well worth reading to try to tease out the truth from the fantasy. And I, and perhaps Baldwin, do think he may have struck on a grain of truth in there somewhere. Which is why I try to read everything, however daft it may seem.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I know about his daft theory, which is too esoteric (or, at least, too far-fetched) for my taste. Someone (can't recall author or title; I read only the free sample on Kindle) has made it into a novel with, if I recall correctly, Sir Thomas More relating the "true" story (favorable to Richard as far as I got) to Hans Holbein. (If anyone knows the novel I'm talking about, feel free to correct me or fill in the blanks for me.)
>
> But, anyway, you can actually access Leslau's site through the Wayback Machine, which takes you back to sites no longer on the Internet. Here's the link for Leslau's: http://web.archive.org/web/20120207030608/http://www.holbeinartworks.org/ And there's a note on the old site, http://www.holbeinartworks.org/, saying that it will be restored within the next twelve months--another consequence of Richard III mania?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> WORLD NEWS ORGANIZATIONS: The intact skeleton of King Richard III has been
> found, and although the skeleton shows evidence of scoliosis, there is no
> indication of hunchback or deformation to the arm.

Really, the discovery that he had scoliosis ought to put paid to the
"hunchback" story, because it shows how that idea came about through a
misunderstanding, and that although he did have a spinal abnormality it was
one which, so long as you didn't see him naked, you wouldn't notice unless
you'd been told to look out for it, and which wouldn't have caused him any
significant difficulties other than intermittent cramp.

Nevertheless, it must have been a bad scoliosis, even allowing for the fact
that he was buried half-sitting and his body probably slumped down a bit.
We know this because the Leicester team said that had his back been straight
he would have been 5'8", which was probably a bit above avergae for the day,
yet we know that with the scoliosis he was so short that even the Scottish
ambassador, while singing his praises, felt obliged to remark on how short
he was.

This is at least one up on William Stanley, who was so thick that even the
University of Oxford, while singing his praises, felt obliged to remark on
how thick he was....

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> > That's giving his craftiness a positive bent. I like that!
> But our friend Croyland Chronicler was using the word in a negative way. I think.

Ishita wrote:
> I'm not sure if he was or not. To be craft-y originally meant to have craft, in the sense of being skillful. I don't know when it started to have negative associations.
>
Carol responds:

Regarding the negative associations of "craftiness," although "crafty" can mean "skillful or clever" (certainly applicable with regard to Richard's finding Anne in the last place he could have expected if he had no guidance from her), it often means "adept in the use of subtlety or cunning" or "marked by subtlety and guile.

"Since "craftiness" *does* have a negative connotation in Modern English (surely Ishita's reaction to the word is the typical one for a Ricardian while a Tudorite would take it in stride because that's how he or she imagines Richard), we need to consult the Latin original to see what Croyland really said. And as I don't have it and my command of Latin is, well, pathetic, I'm afraid we'll have to wait for Marie to return unless someone else can help us out. However, Ishita is certainly correct that the Croyland chronicler, no friend of Richard's, construed anything Richard did in the most negative manner possible. However, he may well have used an ambiguous word that could mean either "astuteness" or "cunning." We can't know until we check.

Carol

The Scottish ambassador was perhaps meant "slight" rather than short, per se. He would be around 5'4 with the abnormality. And being as thin boned as he was, probably looked smaller. I doubt he was very abnormally short otherwise the contemporary sources would abound with it.....
I wonder when they can provide us with his height as well as a straight model of his skeleton so this hunchback stuff can be explained once and for all!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:33 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
> > WORLD NEWS ORGANIZATIONS: The intact skeleton of King Richard III has been
> > found, and although the skeleton shows evidence of scoliosis, there is no
> > indication of hunchback or deformation to the arm.
>
> Really, the discovery that he had scoliosis ought to put paid to the
> "hunchback" story, because it shows how that idea came about through a
> misunderstanding, and that although he did have a spinal abnormality it was
> one which, so long as you didn't see him naked, you wouldn't notice unless
> you'd been told to look out for it, and which wouldn't have caused him any
> significant difficulties other than intermittent cramp.
>
> Nevertheless, it must have been a bad scoliosis, even allowing for the fact
> that he was buried half-sitting and his body probably slumped down a bit.
> We know this because the Leicester team said that had his back been straight
> he would have been 5'8", which was probably a bit above avergae for the day,
> yet we know that with the scoliosis he was so short that even the Scottish
> ambassador, while singing his praises, felt obliged to remark on how short
> he was.
>
> This is at least one up on William Stanley, who was so thick that even the
> University of Oxford, while singing his praises, felt obliged to remark on
> how thick he was....
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> The free book on kindle was Loyalty Bound. Here More tells the story to Holbien and explains his writing that ridiculous story to protect the prince......... It's still free.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Ishita. That's the one I was thinking of. I don't know why I would have stopped reading it if it was free. Either it was so ridiculous that I couldn't force myself to go on (I seem to remember a lot of typos, as well) or the free part was incomplete. At any rate, all I remember is a young Richard conquering his fear at Barnet and then learning that he enjoyed killing men in battle. Ugh.

Carol

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> The Scottish ambassador was perhaps meant "slight" rather than short, per se. He would be around 5'4 with the abnormality. And being as thin boned as he was, probably looked smaller. I doubt he was very abnormally short otherwise the contemporary sources would abound with it.....
> I wonder when they can provide us with his height as well as a straight model of his skeleton so this hunchback stuff can be explained once and for all!

Carol responds:

I agree with you. If his legs were the normal length for that of a man of 5 foot eight but his torso was ten to twelve inches shorter than normal, he would look squished and abnormal (if not quite like Quasimodo) and his normal-length arms would hang to his knees like those of an ape. Since no one, not even enemies like Rous, mentions anything worse than a raised shoulder, I think it's safe to conclude that the height difference was no more than about four inches.

And absolutely, we need a 3D vertical model of his skeleton, properly suspended and properly spaced, so that we can get a clearer idea of what he looked like. From there, the scientists could create a model of his whole body (including the skull) so we can see what he would have looked like clothed. (I hope that they find a different wig; the one they have now looks like it belongs on a department store mannequin and is the wrong color and texture to match the better portraits.)

Carol

Hi there.

Hope it's OK to chip in... I'm delurking to say that I think you are both right.

I believe that in Richard's time, and for a long time afterwards, the word "small" meant specifically slender, lean, thin or narrow rather than short. As in Sir Thomas Wyatt's poem They Flee From Me: "And she me caught in her arms long and small; Therewith all sweetly did me kiss". The lady had long and slender arms, not long and short arms!

I think that someone short would rather be described as "low", and someone tall as "high".



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > The Scottish ambassador was perhaps meant "slight" rather than short, per se. He would be around 5'4 with the abnormality. And being as thin boned as he was, probably looked smaller. I doubt he was very abnormally short otherwise the contemporary sources would abound with it.....
> > I wonder when they can provide us with his height as well as a straight model of his skeleton so this hunchback stuff can be explained once and for all!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. If his legs were the normal length for that of a man of 5 foot eight but his torso was ten to twelve inches shorter than normal, he would look squished and abnormal (if not quite like Quasimodo) and his normal-length arms would hang to his knees like those of an ape. Since no one, not even enemies like Rous, mentions anything worse than a raised shoulder, I think it's safe to conclude that the height difference was no more than about four inches.
>
> And absolutely, we need a 3D vertical model of his skeleton, properly suspended and properly spaced, so that we can get a clearer idea of what he looked like. From there, the scientists could create a model of his whole body (including the skull) so we can see what he would have looked like clothed. (I hope that they find a different wig; the one they have now looks like it belongs on a department store mannequin and is the wrong color and texture to match the better portraits.)
>
> Carol
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> "Since "craftiness" *does* have a negative connotation in Modern English
> (surely Ishita's reaction to the word is the typical one for a Ricardian
> while a Tudorite would take it in stride because that's how he or she
> imagines Richard), we need to consult the Latin original to see what
> Croyland really said.

Oh, blast, silly me - I forgot the original was in Latin!

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> The Scottish ambassador was perhaps meant "slight" rather than short, per
> se. He would be around 5'4 with the abnormality.

Would he, though? The Leicester team said he could have been as short as
4'8" - I feel that's an exaggeration (if you see what I mean), but iirc
Charles I was only 4'11" and as far as we know he didn't even have
scoliosis.

We could really do with knowing how tall von Poppelau was, since he said
Richard was three fingers - probably about 2½" - taller than him. Von P was
famously strong but the fact that he carried his enormous lance wherever he
went, challenging all comers to try to lift it, suggests that he was
overcompensating and saying "Just because I'm practically a dwarf, doesn't
mean I can't take you down any time I want to, Jimmy."

> And being as thin boned as he was, probably looked smaller.

True.

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen

Carol responds:

I've gone back to the beginning of this thread to return it to the topic of Anne Mowbray's marriage. I just discovered a bit of information that ought to have been obvious but which I never thought of before: on her father's death, she became a royal ward,

http://www.queens-haven.co.uk/anne-mowbray.htm

which means that Edward, not her mother, had the right to find her a "suitable" husband. So Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, may have had no say at all in the marriage of her daughter to Edward IV's son Richard. Possibly, Edward threatened to take away some of the lands he had returned to her (formerly Lancastrian) family if she spoke up--or she simply knew that he would do so and said nothing. The site also states that "[Anne's] widowed mother, once one of the wealthiest women in the land, had such a raw deal from Edward IV and Henry VII that she ended her life in relative poverty in the Convent of St Clare." (It does suggest that the bones in the urn might be those of Richard "Duke of York" and his brother, but does not mention Richard III or do more than hint that they may have been killed.)

BTW, this site describes "*three* incised coats of arms of Mowbray, Brotherton, and Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton,"
which make more sense to me than the previous description: "At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray." I just figured out that my confusion arose from the British tendency to omit the serial comma. In American English, the first quotation would read: "the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton, [note the all-important comma] and Mowbray," as opposed to "Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray," as if his arms could impale both Brotherton and Mowbray. Hooray for the serial comma (not to mention a logical sequence of phrases to avoid ambiguity)!

Carol

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> I agree with you. If his legs were the normal length for that of a man of
> 5 foot eight but his torso was ten to twelve inches shorter than normal,
> he would look squished and abnormal (if not quite like Quasimodo) and his
> normal-length arms would hang to his knees like those of an ape.

Except his skeleton looks, in proportion, as if he had rather short arms,
which would counteract that effect, although it's difficult to tell because
he had such a wide pelvis that it kind-of throws the proportions out. I
would guess he was about 5'2", which would be short enough to be considered
short, without looking wildly abnormal. Also the clothes of the time seem
to ahve made people look as if they had rather blocky torsoes and long limbs
anyway.

> (I hope that they find a different wig; the one they have now looks like
> it belongs on a department store mannequin and is the wrong color and
> texture to match the better portraits.)

Yes, it needs to be chestnut and kind-of fluffy, but he's also going to need
different eyebrows to match - especially as they've given him rather thick
brows and the SoA portrait, at least, looks as though his eyebrows were
probably plucked.

"marchunderthearch" wrote:
>
> Hi there.
>
> Hope it's OK to chip in... I'm delurking to say that I think you are both right.
>
> I believe that in Richard's time, and for a long time afterwards, the word "small" meant specifically slender, lean, thin or narrow rather than short. As in Sir Thomas Wyatt's poem They Flee From Me: "And she me caught in her arms long and small; Therewith all sweetly did me kiss". The lady had long and slender arms, not long and short arms!
>
> I think that someone short would rather be described as "low", and someone tall as "high".

Carol responds:

Yes, of course, it's okay to chip in, and you've just made a valuable contribution to the conversation. Sir Thomas More (not that I trust a word he says) uses similar terminology in saying of Mistress Shore, "Proper she was & faire: nothing in her body that you would haue changed, but if you would haue wished her somewhat higher." And the often repeated (mis)translation of Rous's "curtam habiens faciem" ("having a defective form" with reference to the raised shoulder) as "having a small face" at least makes sense if "small" meant "thin."

Great example, by the way.

Carol

His arms did not look short to me. I will check them again. I tend to agree with Carol on this.

Yes, I completely agree about that hair and those silly eye brows! What were they thinking? Maybe in keeping with his " gracile" frame he had delicate eye brows.......
Btw, did you guys read the article by another " hater"? He said R looks like a " gay boxer" with that painted face and square jaw! What can you even say to that other than call him a moron!!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Mar 17, 2013, at 12:31 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
> > I agree with you. If his legs were the normal length for that of a man of
> > 5 foot eight but his torso was ten to twelve inches shorter than normal,
> > he would look squished and abnormal (if not quite like Quasimodo) and his
> > normal-length arms would hang to his knees like those of an ape.
>
> Except his skeleton looks, in proportion, as if he had rather short arms,
> which would counteract that effect, although it's difficult to tell because
> he had such a wide pelvis that it kind-of throws the proportions out. I
> would guess he was about 5'2", which would be short enough to be considered
> short, without looking wildly abnormal. Also the clothes of the time seem
> to ahve made people look as if they had rather blocky torsoes and long limbs
> anyway.
>
> > (I hope that they find a different wig; the one they have now looks like
> > it belongs on a department store mannequin and is the wrong color and
> > texture to match the better portraits.)
>
> Yes, it needs to be chestnut and kind-of fluffy, but he's also going to need
> different eyebrows to match - especially as they've given him rather thick
> brows and the SoA portrait, at least, looks as though his eyebrows were
> probably plucked.
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Except his skeleton looks, in proportion, as if he had rather short arms, which would counteract that effect, although it's difficult to tell because he had such a wide pelvis that it kind-of throws the proportions out. [snip]

Carol responds:

Although the pelvis appears wide in some of the shots of the skeleton as laid out on the table, laying out a skeleton two-dimensionally gives very little indication of its real appearance (vertical and three-dimensional). Note the position of the scapulae (shoulder blades, for instance). If you look at his pelvis as the skeleton appeared in the grave, it looks perfectly normal for a man's. The arms don't look short, either.

http://weirdthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/King-Richard-III-Skeleton.jpg

What throws out the proportions is that unnatural arrangement on the table where the hipbones have to lie flat instead of curving forward as they do in life.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/richard-iii-bones.jpg

vs.

http://www.vitalgaitway.com/sites/default/files/malefemaleskeleton.jpeg

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:51 PM
Subject: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> If you look at his pelvis as the skeleton appeared in the grave, it looks
> perfectly normal for a man's. The arms don't look short, either.

Well, working from a high resolution photo' of the bones and assuming that
he would have been 5'8" if straight and that his femur was about a quarter
of his height (which is the norm for a European) I make his arms 29", which
is the same length as mine although I am just under 5'6". Admittedly my
arms are quite long!

And, as you pointed out, uncross the eyes, and fewer eyebrows, please. I see Richard's physique as that of a runner, slender, powerful legs and amazing endurance. His time on horseback would have giver him core strength. And wielding a sword would have certainly increased the musculature of his dominant arm.

On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> The Scottish ambassador was perhaps meant "slight" rather than short, per se. He would be around 5'4 with the abnormality. And being as thin boned as he was, probably looked smaller. I doubt he was very abnormally short otherwise the contemporary sources would abound with it.....
> I wonder when they can provide us with his height as well as a straight model of his skeleton so this hunchback stuff can be explained once and for all!

Carol responds:

I agree with you. If his legs were the normal length for that of a man of 5 foot eight but his torso was ten to twelve inches shorter than normal, he would look squished and abnormal (if not quite like Quasimodo) and his normal-length arms would hang to his knees like those of an ape. Since no one, not even enemies like Rous, mentions anything worse than a raised shoulder, I think it's safe to conclude that the height difference was no more than about four inches.

And absolutely, we need a 3D vertical model of his skeleton, properly suspended and properly spaced, so that we can get a clearer idea of what he looked like. From there, the scientists could create a model of his whole body (including the skull) so we can see what he would have looked like clothed. (I hope that they find a different wig; the one they have now looks like it belongs on a department store mannequin and is the wrong color and texture to match the better portraits.)

Carol

Thank you Carol, that is fascinating. I had no idea, and the Minories, is yet another place to visit.

On Mar 17, 2013, at 11:14 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Liz..Ive started a new topic because hopefully this could lead to a discussion about poor Anne.
> Ive often wondered what Anne's mother thought about her marrying the youngest 'Prince' Richard. Anne's mother Elizabeth Talbot was the Duchess of Norfolk and sister to Eleanor Talbot/Butler. Dr JA-H in his book Eleanor The Secret Queen....excellent book...suggests that Elizabeth, who was close to EB and protected her would have known about the secret wedding with Edward. If this was the case would she have been aware that Edward's children by EW were illegitimate. Surely she would not have wanted this for her daughter. Did she know and have to keep shut up about it. I wonder....another mystery Eileen

Carol responds:

I've gone back to the beginning of this thread to return it to the topic of Anne Mowbray's marriage. I just discovered a bit of information that ought to have been obvious but which I never thought of before: on her father's death, she became a royal ward,

http://www.queens-haven.co.uk/anne-mowbray.htm

which means that Edward, not her mother, had the right to find her a "suitable" husband. So Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, may have had no say at all in the marriage of her daughter to Edward IV's son Richard. Possibly, Edward threatened to take away some of the lands he had returned to her (formerly Lancastrian) family if she spoke up--or she simply knew that he would do so and said nothing. The site also states that "[Anne's] widowed mother, once one of the wealthiest women in the land, had such a raw deal from Edward IV and Henry VII that she ended her life in relative poverty in the Convent of St Clare." (It does suggest that the bones in the urn might be those of Richard "Duke of York" and his brother, but does not mention Richard III or do more than hint that they may have been killed.)

BTW, this site describes "*three* incised coats of arms of Mowbray, Brotherton, and Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton,"
which make more sense to me than the previous description: "At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray." I just figured out that my confusion arose from the British tendency to omit the serial comma. In American English, the first quotation would read: "the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton, [note the all-important comma] and Mowbray," as opposed to "Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray," as if his arms could impale both Brotherton and Mowbray. Hooray for the serial comma (not to mention a logical sequence of phrases to avoid ambiguity)!

Carol

Carol

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> And wielding a sword would have certainly increased the musculature of his
> dominant arm.

Probably not, because as somebody who expected to be fighting opponents in
plate armour he would likely have been using either a great-sword or a
battle-axe, both of which are wielded two-handed. Also, it's not that hard
to handle a well-balanced weapon: not as hard, I would say, as using a hedge
strimmer.

Good to know, of course the sword would have been larger, duh. Sorry, not to think that through. So balanced arms, which in the first Channel 4 video, arms were normal and matched, I believe as stated by Dr. Appleby.

On Mar 17, 2013, at 12:18 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

> And wielding a sword would have certainly increased the musculature of his
> dominant arm.

Probably not, because as somebody who expected to be fighting opponents in
plate armour he would likely have been using either a great-sword or a
battle-axe, both of which are wielded two-handed. Also, it's not that hard
to handle a well-balanced weapon: not as hard, I would say, as using a hedge
strimmer.

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> Good to know, of course the sword would have been larger, duh. Sorry, not
> to think that through. So balanced arms, which in the first Channel 4
> video, arms were normal and matched, I believe as stated by Dr. Appleby.

I'm intrigued by that portrait of Richard with a broken sword. I suppose
it's been made up from the SoA portait (which it in some respects
resembles), rather than taken from a contemporary image showing him with an
intact sword - but the sword in the image is rather a fun one, with
sword-breakers under the hilt for snagging your opponent's sword and
snapping it.

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> Well, working from a high resolution photo' of the bones and assuming that
he would have been 5'8" if straight and that his femur was about a quarter
of his height (which is the norm for a European) I make his arms 29", which
is the same length as mine although I am just under 5'6". Admittedly my
arms are quite long!

I've done some more calculations on this and I reckon that if he was 5'2"
then his fingertips would have been 4½" above the knee which probably
wouldn't look too weird: he'd just look like a guy with rather long limbs.
But he could hardly have been much less than that - and certainly not 4'8" -
because, as you say, it would have made his proportions so odd that it would
have been remarked on (other than the comment which compared him to a
spider - who was that?).

Where does 4'8" come from?

In the press conferences during the announcement of the identification, I
heard only 5'8" with possibly actual height being 5'4" due to scoliosis.

A J

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Claire M Jordan
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne
> Mowbray)
>
> > Well, working from a high resolution photo' of the bones and assuming
> that
> he would have been 5'8" if straight and that his femur was about a quarter
> of his height (which is the norm for a European) I make his arms 29", which
> is the same length as mine although I am just under 5'6". Admittedly my
> arms are quite long!
>
> I've done some more calculations on this and I reckon that if he was 5'2"
> then his fingertips would have been 4ý" above the knee which probably
> wouldn't look too weird: he'd just look like a guy with rather long limbs.
> But he could hardly have been much less than that - and certainly not 4'8"
> -
> because, as you say, it would have made his proportions so odd that it
> would
> have been remarked on (other than the comment which compared him to a
> spider - who was that?).
>
>
>

Some ass, I am sure!!
Yeah, I reckon he would be somewhere between 5.2-5.4.
Pam, that's exactly the way I see him. Definitely uncross his eyes. What is the color in the reconstruction? Has anyone seen it ?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Mar 17, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Claire M Jordan
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)
>
> > Well, working from a high resolution photo' of the bones and assuming that
> he would have been 5'8" if straight and that his femur was about a quarter
> of his height (which is the norm for a European) I make his arms 29", which
> is the same length as mine although I am just under 5'6". Admittedly my
> arms are quite long!
>
> I've done some more calculations on this and I reckon that if he was 5'2"
> then his fingertips would have been 4½" above the knee which probably
> wouldn't look too weird: he'd just look like a guy with rather long limbs.
> But he could hardly have been much less than that - and certainly not 4'8" -
> because, as you say, it would have made his proportions so odd that it would
> have been remarked on (other than the comment which compared him to a
> spider - who was that?).
>
>

I think, blue....

On Mar 17, 2013, at 12:51 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Some ass, I am sure!!
Yeah, I reckon he would be somewhere between 5.2-5.4.
Pam, that's exactly the way I see him. Definitely uncross his eyes. What is the color in the reconstruction? Has anyone seen it ?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>

On Mar 17, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>> wrote:

> From: Claire M Jordan
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)
>
> > Well, working from a high resolution photo' of the bones and assuming that
> he would have been 5'8" if straight and that his femur was about a quarter
> of his height (which is the norm for a European) I make his arms 29", which
> is the same length as mine although I am just under 5'6". Admittedly my
> arms are quite long!
>
> I've done some more calculations on this and I reckon that if he was 5'2"
> then his fingertips would have been 4ý" above the knee which probably
> wouldn't look too weird: he'd just look like a guy with rather long limbs.
> But he could hardly have been much less than that - and certainly not 4'8" -
> because, as you say, it would have made his proportions so odd that it would
> have been remarked on (other than the comment which compared him to a
> spider - who was that?).
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> Pam, that's exactly the way I see him. Definitely uncross his eyes. What
> is the color in the reconstruction?

Blue, which is correct, although his eyelashes are too dark of course. He
probably would have been a bit thinner in the face, too, since he seems to
have been generally thin and plus some of his cheek teeth were missing.

And of course, this is him at about 17-20: after a lifetime in the saddle
he'd have been a lot more literally weatherbeaten at 32.

From what i recall they said scoliosis can reduce the height "by up to" one foot.  They didn't say it reduced Richard's height by a foot.



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 17:42
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

Where does 4'8" come from?

In the press conferences during the announcement of the identification, I
heard only 5'8" with possibly actual height being 5'4" due to scoliosis.

A J

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Claire M Jordan
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne
> Mowbray)
>
> > Well, working from a high resolution photo' of the bones and assuming
> that
> he would have been 5'8" if straight and that his femur was about a quarter
> of his height (which is the norm for a European) I make his arms 29", which
> is the same length as mine although I am just under 5'6". Admittedly my
> arms are quite long!
>
> I've done some more calculations on this and I reckon that if he was 5'2"
> then his fingertips would have been 4½" above the knee which probably
> wouldn't look too weird: he'd just look like a guy with rather long limbs.
> But he could hardly have been much less than that - and certainly not 4'8"
> -
> because, as you say, it would have made his proportions so odd that it
> would
> have been remarked on (other than the comment which compared him to a
> spider - who was that?).
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>[snip]
> Pam, that's exactly the way I see him. Definitely uncross his eyes. What is the color in the reconstruction? Has anyone seen it ?

Carol responds:

Although the eyes look dark brown in most of the photos of the reconstruction, they're actually a lovely dark blue, as you can see in this photo:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130205063729-exp-early-mclaughlin-richard-iii-00015213-horizontal-gallery.jpg

We know that they took the coloring from the National Portrait Gallery portrait, which also has blue (or blue-grey) eyes:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130204110635-richard-horizontal-gallery.jpg

Too bad they didn't get the hair right, so the idea that Richard was "the dark one in a fair family" is partly reinforced, especially since the eye color doesn't show up in most of the photos. But the portraits show brown hair, fair-to-pale skin, and blue or grey eyes. I wouldn't call that "dark," myself.

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> I'm intrigued by that portrait of Richard with a broken sword. I suppose
> it's been made up from the SoA portait (which it in some respects
> resembles), rather than taken from a contemporary image showing him with an
> intact sword - but the sword in the image is rather a fun one, with
> sword-breakers under the hilt for snagging your opponent's sword and
> snapping it.
>

It's interesting, though, that the broken sword portrait seems closer to the actual shape of his face than the SoA portrait...

I'm also intrigued by his very fair colouring in it.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)



> Too bad they didn't get the hair right, so the idea that Richard was "the
> dark one in a fair family" is partly reinforced, especially since the eye
> color doesn't show up in most of the photos. But the portraits show brown
> hair, fair-to-pale skin, and blue or grey eyes. I wouldn't call that
> "dark," myself.

Not at all - although he was probably tanned when he was on campaign. The
idea that he was dark comes from Olivier and from Tey and Jarman, both of
whom were influenced by the appearance of the NPG portrait before it was
cleaned, when the varnish was very dark.

If anything, Edward seems to have had darker hair.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> And of course, this is him at about 17-20: after a lifetime in the saddle he'd have been a lot more literally weatherbeaten at 32.
>
Carol responds:

Actually, the reconstructors were quite careful to base the skin depth on that of a man of the correct age, late twenties to early thirties, using all those pins once they had determined the muscle structure. Caroline Wilkinson did state that facial reconstructions often look young because they can't determine where to place lines and wrinkles, if any.

They did try to create the effects of an outdoor life on his skin. I seem to recall either Wilkinson or her assistant mentioning that they based it on that of real Englishmen in the right age group, including, IIRC, Wilkinson's own son. They also gave him a tiny bit of stubble.

But I think you may be exaggerating the amount of skin damage he would have suffered. If he was wearing a helmet, the sun could not have tanned him. And we're talking about England--rainy, sometimes snowy England--in the Little Ice Age. It's not as if he were riding hatless in the Arizona desert, which would have made him a candidate for melanoma (and heatstroke).

Carol

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> It's interesting, though, that the broken sword portrait seems closer to
> the actual shape of his face than the SoA portrait...

The SoA one is actually very close - I uploaded a picture to Files showing
it matched against his skull - except that the artist, or the copyist, had
placed his right cheek too high and also played down that socking great chin
(but so has the NPG one).

> I'm also intrigued by his very fair colouring in it.

Yes. It may be that rather than being copied from the SoA portait they're
*both* taken from a lost original and the broken sword one is in some
respects the more accurate copy. That would mean, though, that the original
was facing towards the left of the frame, rather than the SoA one being
mirror-reversed relative to its source, which takes us back to an original
portrait showing him with his left shoulder higher.

And even though the broken sword one is assumed to be deliberately
insulting, it makes him look both handsome and pleasant. I also don't know
why it's said to show him with a withered arm - both it and the SoA one show
him with his right shoulder depressed but his arms seem otherwise to be the
same thickness.

Also, on my mother's family side, which includes the Yorks, there were a lot of black or very dark brown haired, blue eyed folks. Most of them had enough pigmentation to tan easily, as do most of my cousins and I. In Richard's day, they had the good sense to wear hats and to cover their arms. So, I would think the dark is more hair coloration than eyes, and skin.

On Mar 17, 2013, at 1:47 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> And of course, this is him at about 17-20: after a lifetime in the saddle he'd have been a lot more literally weatherbeaten at 32.
>
Carol responds:

Actually, the reconstructors were quite careful to base the skin depth on that of a man of the correct age, late twenties to early thirties, using all those pins once they had determined the muscle structure. Caroline Wilkinson did state that facial reconstructions often look young because they can't determine where to place lines and wrinkles, if any.

They did try to create the effects of an outdoor life on his skin. I seem to recall either Wilkinson or her assistant mentioning that they based it on that of real Englishmen in the right age group, including, IIRC, Wilkinson's own son. They also gave him a tiny bit of stubble.

But I think you may be exaggerating the amount of skin damage he would have suffered. If he was wearing a helmet, the sun could not have tanned him. And we're talking about England--rainy, sometimes snowy England--in the Little Ice Age. It's not as if he were riding hatless in the Arizona desert, which would have made him a candidate for melanoma (and heatstroke).

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> they based it on that of real Englishmen in the right age group,
> including, IIRC, Wilkinson's own son.

That's no good unless Wilkinson's son spends a lot of time outdoors in rough
weather. You might get an idea by looking at a modern farm labourer of the
right age, or a trawlerman a few years yonger.

> But I think you may be exaggerating the amount of skin damage he would
> have suffered. If he was wearing a helmet, the sun could not have tanned
> him.

He'd hardly have been wearing a closed helmet whilst riding about Yorkshire
and the Borders, except when actually engaged in skirmishing.

> And we're talking about England--rainy, sometimes snowy England--in the
> Little Ice Age.

That doesn't mean it's not sometimes very bright, and it would have been
*extremely* windy. That's why the Scottish borders is where they stick most
of the wind farms.

liz williams wrote:
>
> From what i recall they said scoliosis can reduce the height "by up to" one foot.  They didn't say it reduced Richard's height by a foot.

Carol responds:

And wasn't it Jo Appleby who said that? I doubt that she's an expert on scoliosis given her initial remarks.

Carol

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> So, I would think the dark is more hair coloration than eyes, and skin.

The portraits all show him as very fair, when he was at court, though he
would probably have been tanned when he was on patrol. What I'm saying is
that his skin-tone would probably have looked more weathered at 32, he would
have had more marked crow's feet etc, because he'd spent much of his life
being lashed by the wind and rain.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> The SoA one is actually very close - I uploaded a picture to Files showing
> it matched against his skull - except that the artist, or the copyist, had
> placed his right cheek too high and also played down that socking great chin
> (but so has the NPG one).

Interesting - somehow I missed that one, could you please link to it? I don't know if I'm being dense but I can't find it!

I've only seen the one in which his skull was matched to the NPG portrait, and I thought that one seemed very close as well - chin and all.

> And even though the broken sword one is assumed to be deliberately
> insulting, it makes him look both handsome and pleasant.

I've always thought the same. As far as insults go, well, I've certainly had worse...

Sorry if someone has already answered Carol's question. I'm playing catch-up with posts. But I think the novel involving Holbein and Richard's "true" story is "Loyalty" by Matthew Lewis. He offered a free Kindle version for download some time back. It's not bad, but that particular version was so full of typos and other errors (my recollection is, for example, that he got the date of Tewkesbury wrong)that it drove me mad. I hope he's cleaned it up since then.
Pamela Garrett

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > He was an expert on the interpretation of Holbein paintings and had a quite famous theory that the princes survived as Lord Edward Guildford and Dr John Clement (who married More's step-daughter Meg Giggs). Falls over when you compare dates, but still intriguing. His theories on Eleanor (apart from her having a son by Edward whose dates are all wrong again) are worth considering, particularly around the relationship with her sister Elizabeth. The trouble with Leslau  (and Baldwin an R3 scholar does quote him) is that he takes his theories one step too far so it discredits everything he says, where actually some of it is quite creditable. Because he's died his website is down but it was well worth reading to try to tease out the truth from the fantasy. And I, and perhaps Baldwin, do think he may have struck on a grain of truth in there somewhere. Which is why I try to read everything, however daft it may seem.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I know about his daft theory, which is too esoteric (or, at least, too far-fetched) for my taste. Someone (can't recall author or title; I read only the free sample on Kindle) has made it into a novel with, if I recall correctly, Sir Thomas More relating the "true" story (favorable to Richard as far as I got) to Hans Holbein. (If anyone knows the novel I'm talking about, feel free to correct me or fill in the blanks for me.)
>
> But, anyway, you can actually access Leslau's site through the Wayback Machine, which takes you back to sites no longer on the Internet. Here's the link for Leslau's: http://web.archive.org/web/20120207030608/http://www.holbeinartworks.org/ And there's a note on the old site, http://www.holbeinartworks.org/, saying that it will be restored within the next twelve months--another consequence of Richard III mania?
>
> Carol
>

Oh absolutely, and also by worry, grief and the tremendous weight "metaphorical" he carried on his shoulders.

On Mar 17, 2013, at 2:05 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

> So, I would think the dark is more hair coloration than eyes, and skin.

The portraits all show him as very fair, when he was at court, though he
would probably have been tanned when he was on patrol. What I'm saying is
that his skin-tone would probably have looked more weathered at 32, he would
have had more marked crow's feet etc, because he'd spent much of his life
being lashed by the wind and rain.

Oh yes.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)



liz williams wrote:
>
> From what i recall they said scoliosis can reduce the height "by up to" one foot. They didn't say it reduced Richard's height by a foot.

Carol responds:

And wasn't it Jo Appleby who said that? I doubt that she's an expert on scoliosis given her initial remarks.

Carol

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray


> Interesting - somehow I missed that one, could you please link to it? I
> don't know if I'm being dense but I can't find it!

When you click you just get the image - look down the list of files and it's
"Richard SoA skull.jpg". It doesn't match quite as well as the NPG one
because the angle's not quite right but you can see for example that if you
line up the eye-sockets and jaw then the mouth and left cheek also lign up.

> I've only seen the one in which his skull was matched to the NPG portrait,
> and I thought that one seemed very close as well - chin and all.

I think they've cheated a nit, though, and ommitted part of the chin of the
skull!

Carol earlier:
> > Too bad they didn't get the hair right, so the idea that Richard was "the dark one in a fair family" is partly reinforced, especially since the eye color doesn't show up in most of the photos. But the portraits show brown hair, fair-to-pale skin, and blue or grey eyes. I wouldn't call that "dark," myself.

Claire responded:
> Not at all - although he was probably tanned when he was on campaign. The idea that he was dark comes from Olivier and from Tey and Jarman, both of whom were influenced by the appearance of the NPG portrait before it was cleaned, when the varnish was very dark.
>
[snip]
>
Carol responds:

You'd be surprised how widespread that misconception ("dark one in a fair family") is and how often it's stated as fact (along with the one about Richard's being a sickly child, which appears even in Kendall, presumably a misreading of "Richard liveth yet").

For example, it appears in an article by Roxane Murph on the American branch website in which Murph is trying to trace the making of the R III legend. http://www.r3.org/bookcase/murph1.html She states unequivocally, "In this family of large, fair, healthy children the dark, undersized, sickly Richard must have seemed like a changeling." "Undersized and sickly comes from her chief source, Kendall, but the dark one in a fair family is straight out of Tey.

Sharon Kay Penman uses the same phrase, "dark one in a fair family," and even the "changeling" idea ("Sunne in Splendour," p. 233). (She uses the same description for characters in her other books, so she must like it.)

My copy of Rhoda Edwards's "Broken Sword" has a brows-skinned Richard who looks more like a beardless Saladin than Richard on the cover; I don't know how she describes him since I can't find the book.

I don't think that these are the only examples. I'm wondering whether the idea really originates with Tey and whether she had some source for it other than the NPG portrait. Although in this interview

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/04/171103041/king-richard-iii-may-not-have-been-the-tyrant-shakespeare-made-him-out-to-be

John Ashdown-Hill thinks that the idea of Richard as being dark is part of the same propaganda that made him deformed ("He's seen as a deformed person, dark skinned, dark hair, small - rather like a spider. Being dark and being deformed in the 16th century were thought to be signs of evil, evil character), I checked a Shakespeare concordance and can't find any references to Richard as dark in either Richard III or Henry VI, Part 3. I don't recall any such references in the Croyland Chronicle, Rous, Vergil, or More. (Mancini and Commynes provide no physical description at all.)

So where did Tey get the idea? Her chief source, Sir Clements Markham (who must be prescient) says that Richard had "light brown hair and a very handsome face" (p. 40). Nor does James Gairdner (who is at pains to find something sinister in the gentle, thoughtful-looking portraits) mention anything about Richard's being dark. (He does mention grey eyes.)

It would be odd if Tey, one of Richard's greatest admirers, were the originator of a minor myth about him, but that does seem to be the case as far as I can determine.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> The portraits all show him as very fair, when he was at court, though he would probably have been tanned when he was on patrol. What I'm saying is that his skin-tone would probably have looked more weathered at 32, he would have had more marked crow's feet etc, because he'd spent much of his life being lashed by the wind and rain.
>
Carol responds:

You're certainly right that he was very fair while he was at court (and, we can safely assume, when he was at home in Middleham). So the question becomes, how much of his life did he actually spend outdoors? He did need to travel fairly often (including a long progress to York in 1483), and he participated in a few skirmishes, two major battles (not counting Bosworth), and the Scottish campaigns. But surely it's an exaggeration to say, as you did in another post, that he spent the majority of his life on horseback.

Someone who has access to "The Itinerary of Richard III" by Rhoda Edwards might be able to give us some idea of how much time he spent outdoors as king. And does anyone know how long the Scottish campaign lasted? That would be, as you suggest in another post, where he was exposed to the harshest weather. But if he wasn't wearing a helmet, he would certainly have worn a hat or hooded cloak--hopefully a more substantial hat than the decorative one he wears in the portraits.

We tend to think of him as a soldier, but even as Duke of Gloucester, he had a huge number of administrative duties. He must have spent half his waking life reading and signing documents, listening to grievances, or (everyone's favorite duty [note sarcasm]) attending or chairing meetings.

Carol

It was mentioned on this forum once that Richard was described as a " Saracen" by one of the contemporary sources.....or am I misremembering?
As long as they change that hair and the eyebrows I will be happy:) I always thought he was a good looking dude but this reconstruction is better than my imagination.
Now I have this question: who is the person on he SofA painting?? It looks like Ricard some time and nothing like him other times.....
Carol, I hate that cover photo on Broken Sword! Shudder. He looks so strange that I have to actually put a cover on it! In all the recent articles about him, they have been using the Victorian engravings hat make him look 70....... Isn't it time they put the real picture? Why is change so hard?!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Carol earlier:
> > > Too bad they didn't get the hair right, so the idea that Richard was "the dark one in a fair family" is partly reinforced, especially since the eye color doesn't show up in most of the photos. But the portraits show brown hair, fair-to-pale skin, and blue or grey eyes. I wouldn't call that "dark," myself.
>
> Claire responded:
> > Not at all - although he was probably tanned when he was on campaign. The idea that he was dark comes from Olivier and from Tey and Jarman, both of whom were influenced by the appearance of the NPG portrait before it was cleaned, when the varnish was very dark.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> You'd be surprised how widespread that misconception ("dark one in a fair family") is and how often it's stated as fact (along with the one about Richard's being a sickly child, which appears even in Kendall, presumably a misreading of "Richard liveth yet").
>
> For example, it appears in an article by Roxane Murph on the American branch website in which Murph is trying to trace the making of the R III legend. http://www.r3.org/bookcase/murph1.html She states unequivocally, "In this family of large, fair, healthy children the dark, undersized, sickly Richard must have seemed like a changeling." "Undersized and sickly comes from her chief source, Kendall, but the dark one in a fair family is straight out of Tey.
>
> Sharon Kay Penman uses the same phrase, "dark one in a fair family," and even the "changeling" idea ("Sunne in Splendour," p. 233). (She uses the same description for characters in her other books, so she must like it.)
>
> My copy of Rhoda Edwards's "Broken Sword" has a brows-skinned Richard who looks more like a beardless Saladin than Richard on the cover; I don't know how she describes him since I can't find the book.
>
> I don't think that these are the only examples. I'm wondering whether the idea really originates with Tey and whether she had some source for it other than the NPG portrait. Although in this interview
>
> http://www.npr.org/2013/02/04/171103041/king-richard-iii-may-not-have-been-the-tyrant-shakespeare-made-him-out-to-be
>
> John Ashdown-Hill thinks that the idea of Richard as being dark is part of the same propaganda that made him deformed ("He's seen as a deformed person, dark skinned, dark hair, small - rather like a spider. Being dark and being deformed in the 16th century were thought to be signs of evil, evil character), I checked a Shakespeare concordance and can't find any references to Richard as dark in either Richard III or Henry VI, Part 3. I don't recall any such references in the Croyland Chronicle, Rous, Vergil, or More. (Mancini and Commynes provide no physical description at all.)
>
> So where did Tey get the idea? Her chief source, Sir Clements Markham (who must be prescient) says that Richard had "light brown hair and a very handsome face" (p. 40). Nor does James Gairdner (who is at pains to find something sinister in the gentle, thoughtful-looking portraits) mention anything about Richard's being dark. (He does mention grey eyes.)
>
> It would be odd if Tey, one of Richard's greatest admirers, were the originator of a minor myth about him, but that does seem to be the case as far as I can determine.
>
> Carol
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

[snip]
> And even though the broken sword one is assumed to be deliberately
> insulting, it makes him look both handsome and pleasant. I also don't know why it's said to show him with a withered arm - both it and the SoA one show him with his right shoulder depressed but his arms seem otherwise to be the same thickness.
>
Carol responds:

The hump and the shortened arm in the original painting were painted over, presumably by someone who liked Richard or who didn't know Richard from Adam but liked the looks of the young man in the painting and tried to "fix" it.

At least the original artist of the Broken Sword painting knew how young Richard was when he died even if he did give him gratuitous deformities. The NPG painting, much as I like it, makes him look too old. Even if he suffered from extreme stress (as we know he did) and had a few lines around the mouth or eyes, he wouldn't have looked forty-five. (I won't mention the SoA portrait, which I don't like. Maybe it's that ghastly cloth-of-gold outfit he's wearing.)

We've strayed a long way from Anne Mowbray. Time to change the subject heading.

Carol

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> It was mentioned on this forum once that Richard was described as a " Saracen" by one of the contemporary sources.....or am I misremembering?
[snip]
> Carol, I hate that cover photo on Broken Sword! Shudder. He looks so strange that I have to actually put a cover on it! In all the recent articles about him, they have been using the Victorian engravings hat make him look 70....... Isn't it time they put the real picture? Why is change so hard?!

Carol responds:

You're not misremembering. We did have a thread on that topic a while back. The (obviously pro-Tudor) Welsh bard Dafydd Llwyd of Mathafarn wrote "shame on the hang-lipped Saracen for killing the angels of Christ," in which he compares Richard to a Muslim (unchristian and therefore wicked) for ostensibly killing his nephews. Whether the "Saracen" description was also intended imply that he was dark-skinned as well as merciless, I don't know. It's obvious that he never saw either Richard or a real Muslim ("hang-lipped" is obviously both offensive and inaccurate) and had no idea what he was talking about.

For those who know "The Broken Sword" as "Some Touch of Pity," here's the awful cover that Ishita and I are talking about:

http://bookfair.com.au/thumbnail.php?pic=uplimg/img_A_107348_4cad1105710a9f9d0f2083a611ad29c6.jpg&w=250&sq=Y

It has apparently been replaced by in newer editions by one that obscures his features (unless the photo is defective or it's just my eyesight):

http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1268434090l/1217375.jpg

The "Some Touch of Pity" cover isn't much better:

http://rosemarysutcliff.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/some-touch-of-pity.jpg

It makes him look about fifty.

*All* the recent articles are using Victorian (or maybe eighteenth-century) engravings that make him look about seventy? That's inexcusable given not only the facial reconstruction but the constantly repeated fact that he died at 32. The aged Richard is one myth that ought to be completely dead.

(Not that I have anything against older people, being one myself. It's just that he needs to be seen as he was, not as posterity depicted him.)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

> You'd be surprised how widespread that misconception ("dark one in a fair
> family") is and how often it's stated as fact (along with the one about
> Richard's being a sickly child, which appears even in Kendall, presumably
> a misreading of "Richard liveth yet").

I know that one was dismissed because the same thing was said about his
father, but I wonder if that was a joke - it may mean that both of them were
considered to be in danger, young Richard as an apparently weak baby and his
father because of his political situation. Whether he was actually sickly
or not he probably looked like he might be, since he presumably had very
thin bones even as a baby. He msut have looked like a little stick insect.

> For example, it appears in an article by Roxane Murph on the American
> branch website in which Murph is trying to trace the making of the R III
> legend. http://www.r3.org/bookcase/murph1.html She states unequivocally,
> "In this family of large, fair, healthy children the dark, undersized,
> sickly Richard must have seemed like a changeling." "Undersized and sickly
> comes from her chief source, Kendall, but the dark one in a fair family is
> straight out of Tey.

And apart from Richard being quite fair, Edward's hair looks dark and we
don't know what colour the rest of them were, so it's more likely Richard
was the only (nearly) redhead in a dark family. Although there must have
been some blond in that family because Edward's children seem to have been
blond (from their stained glass portraits) and blond is recessive, so he
must have been carrying it.

> Sharon Kay Penman uses the same phrase, "dark one in a fair family,"

I saw it being referred to in a forum a few days ago, as well.

> My copy of Rhoda Edwards's "Broken Sword" has a brows-skinned Richard who
> looks more like a beardless Saladin

The one which makes him look like a particularly mournful Greek waiter?

> So where did Tey get the idea?

Honestly, I think it was just that portrait. I remember it before and
after - it was cleaned when I was 13 or 14. There are no reference points
in it, no grass or sky, so before it was cleaned it just looked like an
olive-skinned, black-haired man against a brown curtain - there was no
obvious clue that it was so badly yellowed.

I don't think I saw it "in the flesh" before it was cleaned but I had inages
of the painting, and then I went to see it after it was cleaned and it was
really radically different.

> Her chief source, Sir Clements Markham (who must be prescient) says that
> Richard had "light brown hair and a very handsome face" (p. 40).

Suggesting that it hadn't yet gone yellow in those days.

As for the itinerary, I've got one for his whole life except 1485, but I
can't open it at the mo, because Word is playing hob. At some point I'm
thinking of turning it into html and posting it for people to nitpick so we
can get the best possible version. It's very useful.

> It would be odd if Tey, one of Richard's greatest admirers, were the
> originator of a minor myth about him, but that does seem to be the case as
> far as I can determine.

Rosemary Hawley Jarman also portrays him as olive-skinned and black-haired:
she may have got it from Tey but it's equally likely she independently got
that idea from his portrait, pre cleaning.

It's been like that for a long time - way before Richard was rediscovered



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 0:26
Subject: Leslau website (Was: Anne Mowbray)

 

Carol earlier:

> [snip] And there's a note on the old site, http://www.holbeinartworks.org/, saying that it will be restored within the next twelve months--another consequence of Richard III mania?

Carol again:

Sorry about that. It didn't link because Yahoo included the comma as part of the URL. Let me try again: http://www.holbeinartworks.org/

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Broken Sword painting (Was: Anne
Mowbray)


> Even if he suffered from extreme stress (as we know he did) and had a few
> lines around the mouth or eyes, he wouldn't have looked forty-five. (I
> won't mention the SoA portrait, which I don't like. Maybe it's that
> ghastly cloth-of-gold outfit he's wearing.)

Hafta say I disagree on both points - I don't think he looks much older than
he was in the NPG one, and I've always really liked the SoA one - although
perversely I liked it better before it was cleaned. I can't help wondering
whether in this case it's been *over* cleaned because it now makes him look
as if he's wearing lipstick.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> For those who know "The Broken Sword" as "Some Touch of Pity," here's the
> awful cover that Ishita and I are talking about:

Oh, yes, that's bad, but I don't know that it's neccessarily *worse* than
the Greek waiter one, which is about halfway down the page here:
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife/15C.html

Yes, it was. She made that comment during the press conference. She was quite careful to say *up to*, not that she had measured his height based on the remains as a foot shorter than 5' 8".

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> liz williams wrote:
> >
> > From what i recall they said scoliosis can reduce the height "by up to" one foot.  They didn't say it reduced Richard's height by a foot.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And wasn't it Jo Appleby who said that? I doubt that she's an expert on scoliosis given her initial remarks.
>
> Carol
>

Don't honestly know that one, but Vanora Bennett's 'Portrait of an Unkown Woman' which tells the story of Meg Giggs certainly pre-dates it. 



________________________________
From: Pamela <ownwrite101@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 19:23
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

 

Sorry if someone has already answered Carol's question. I'm playing catch-up with posts. But I think the novel involving Holbein and Richard's "true" story is "Loyalty" by Matthew Lewis. He offered a free Kindle version for download some time back. It's not bad, but that particular version was so full of typos and other errors (my recollection is, for example, that he got the date of Tewkesbury wrong)that it drove me mad. I hope he's cleaned it up since then.
Pamela Garrett

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > He was an expert on the interpretation of Holbein paintings and had a quite famous theory that the princes survived as Lord Edward Guildford and Dr John Clement (who married More's step-daughter Meg Giggs). Falls over when you compare dates, but still intriguing. His theories on Eleanor (apart from her having a son by Edward whose dates are all wrong again) are worth considering, particularly around the relationship with her sister Elizabeth. The trouble with Leslau  (and Baldwin an R3 scholar does quote him) is that he takes his theories one step too far so it discredits everything he says, where actually some of it is quite creditable. Because he's died his website is down but it was well worth reading to try to tease out the truth from the fantasy. And I, and perhaps Baldwin, do think he may have struck on a grain of truth in there somewhere. Which is why I try to read everything, however daft it may seem.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I know about his daft theory, which is too esoteric (or, at least, too far-fetched) for my taste. Someone (can't recall author or title; I read only the free sample on Kindle) has made it into a novel with, if I recall correctly, Sir Thomas More relating the "true" story (favorable to Richard as far as I got) to Hans Holbein. (If anyone knows the novel I'm talking about, feel free to correct me or fill in the blanks for me.)
>
> But, anyway, you can actually access Leslau's site through the Wayback Machine, which takes you back to sites no longer on the Internet. Here's the link for Leslau's: http://web.archive.org/web/20120207030608/http://www.holbeinartworks.org/ And there's a note on the old site, http://www.holbeinartworks.org/, saying that it will be restored within the next twelve months--another consequence of Richard III mania?
>
> Carol
>

I think it's interesting how one interprets 'fair'. Edward was supposed to be fair, golden etc, yet in his portraits he is dark haired with brown eyes. Does fair in this context mean handsome, as it did for queens, who were always portrayed as blond like the virgin? EW has brown hair when you examine her portraits. For what it's worth I love the SOA portrait because it shows a sensitive Richard; it could have been a poet, an artist or a Medici prince. And what is so unusual is the grey eyes. I can't think of another portrait from that or the 16th century which shows someone with light eyes. Can anyone else?   



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 21:36
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

 

"Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> The portraits all show him as very fair, when he was at court, though he would probably have been tanned when he was on patrol. What I'm saying is that his skin-tone would probably have looked more weathered at 32, he would have had more marked crow's feet etc, because he'd spent much of his life being lashed by the wind and rain.
>
Carol responds:

You're certainly right that he was very fair while he was at court (and, we can safely assume, when he was at home in Middleham). So the question becomes, how much of his life did he actually spend outdoors? He did need to travel fairly often (including a long progress to York in 1483), and he participated in a few skirmishes, two major battles (not counting Bosworth), and the Scottish campaigns. But surely it's an exaggeration to say, as you did in another post, that he spent the majority of his life on horseback.

Someone who has access to "The Itinerary of Richard III" by Rhoda Edwards might be able to give us some idea of how much time he spent outdoors as king. And does anyone know how long the Scottish campaign lasted? That would be, as you suggest in another post, where he was exposed to the harshest weather. But if he wasn't wearing a helmet, he would certainly have worn a hat or hooded cloak--hopefully a more substantial hat than the decorative one he wears in the portraits.

We tend to think of him as a soldier, but even as Duke of Gloucester, he had a huge number of administrative duties. He must have spent half his waking life reading and signing documents, listening to grievances, or (everyone's favorite duty [note sarcasm]) attending or chairing meetings.

Carol

Edwards' estimated 2800+ miles covered in 26 months, but thought that an
underestimate. She guessed 3000 miles would be about right.

A J

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 4:36 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > The portraits all show him as very fair, when he was at court, though he
> would probably have been tanned when he was on patrol. What I'm saying is
> that his skin-tone would probably have looked more weathered at 32, he
> would have had more marked crow's feet etc, because he'd spent much of his
> life being lashed by the wind and rain.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> You're certainly right that he was very fair while he was at court (and,
> we can safely assume, when he was at home in Middleham). So the question
> becomes, how much of his life did he actually spend outdoors? He did need
> to travel fairly often (including a long progress to York in 1483), and he
> participated in a few skirmishes, two major battles (not counting
> Bosworth), and the Scottish campaigns. But surely it's an exaggeration to
> say, as you did in another post, that he spent the majority of his life on
> horseback.
>
> Someone who has access to "The Itinerary of Richard III" by Rhoda Edwards
> might be able to give us some idea of how much time he spent outdoors as
> king. And does anyone know how long the Scottish campaign lasted? That
> would be, as you suggest in another post, where he was exposed to the
> harshest weather. But if he wasn't wearing a helmet, he would certainly
> have worn a hat or hooded cloak--hopefully a more substantial hat than the
> decorative one he wears in the portraits.
>
> We tend to think of him as a soldier, but even as Duke of Gloucester, he
> had a huge number of administrative duties. He must have spent half his
> waking life reading and signing documents, listening to grievances, or
> (everyone's favorite duty [note sarcasm]) attending or chairing meetings.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> Edwards' estimated 2800+ miles covered in 26 months, but thought that an
> underestimate. She guessed 3000 miles would be about right.

Probably averaging about six miles an hour - so that's 500 hours in the
saddle during his kingship. That's only 19 hours a month but before he was
king it was probably more like 19 hours a week, in part because anywhere he
might want to be in the north was spread out more.

This is not counting recreational riding, of course.

Ishita wrote:

> Would he, though? The Leicester team said he could have been as short as 4'8".

We may want to consider that with that much of a spinal curvature, his lungs and heart -- and therefore his physical activities -- would have been seriously compressed and compromised.

What the Leicester team has said about his scoliosis and what Richard did are poles apart. His bones need a thorough examination by an orthopedic surgeon in partnership with a forensic anthropologist. I'm sure they'll eventually get there.

In the meantime...we anguish, but I cling to what we know he was capable of doing physically. Since that involved being able to breathe and move freely, I'm thinking there is no way the curvature could be that severe, or his height (and interior organs) compressed by a foot.

~Weds

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:38 PM
Subject: 4'8" would likely really hurt


> Would he, though? The Leicester team said he could have been as short as
> 4'8".

I think it was me, not Ishita. I'm sure we can assume he wasn't as short as
4'8", but the point I was trying to make was that I don't think we can
assume he was as much as 5'4" either, although he can't really have been
less than 5'1" without ending up looking like a gibbon. Above that, he
would just look like a short guy with long limbs, not odd enough to incite
comment.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> When you click you just get the image - look down the list of files and it's
> "Richard SoA skull.jpg". It doesn't match quite as well as the NPG one
> because the angle's not quite right but you can see for example that if you
> line up the eye-sockets and jaw then the mouth and left cheek also lign up.
>

Thanks, Claire - I still can't find it but it must be because I'm very tired! I'll try again tomorrow...

For what it's worth, the picture I saw of the skull matched to the NPG portrait isn't the same as in the Files section. Now that I look at the one I saw more closely, the chin on the skull is indeed longer than on the portrait. Interesting. (I can just imagine the original portrait painters thinking that chin NEEDS to be photoshopped...)

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>[snip]
> As for the itinerary, I've got one for his whole life except 1485, but I can't open it at the mo, because Word is playing hob. At some point I'm thinking of turning it into html and posting it for people to nitpick so we can get the best possible version. It's very useful.
> [snip]

Carol responds:

That would be very useful, thank you. Be sure to check the box that lets you announce to the group that you've uploaded a file.

Loved your description of the "particularly mournful Greek waiter." I linked to an image of the cover in another post, so you can let me know if it's the same one. Since I can't find any references before Tey to "the dark one in a fair family," I'm tentatively accepting your explanation that the uncleaned painting misled her. (It's all your fault, National Portrait Gallery! Clean your paintings, please!) Was it Pamela Tudor-Craig who persuaded them to clean it, or perhaps did it herself, along with X-rays of the paintings?

I'll stick with the idea that "Richard liveth yet" is mere filler in the English version of the poem (the Latin version contains no such line for either father or son). It wouldn't be a joke. There's nothing humorous about the poem, which includes references to the children who died. It's interesting that the oldest, Henry, is referred to as "my lord Harry." He must have lived beyond infancy to be thought of in that way. Imagine *him* living and becoming Henry VIII! No Edward IV--and Richard could have remained Duke of Gloucester or whatever dukedom that brother gave him. But that's too iffy. I like my fantasy of Edmund living and keeping Edward in check better. No secret marriages for you, brother. You have to behave like a king!

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it's interesting how one interprets 'fair'. Edward was supposed to be fair, golden etc, yet in his portraits he is dark haired with brown eyes. Does fair in this context mean handsome, as it did for queens, who were always portrayed as blond like the virgin? EW has brown hair when you examine her portraits.
>


Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?

I don't think Edward was particularly dark; his hair looks similar to Richard's in the portraits below, and his eyes were probably hazel rather than brown. If Anne was a redhead with hazel eyes (as the coronation portrait suggests), then Cecily might have had the red hair/hazel eyes gene from the Nevilles. (No idea about the Duke of York's side.)

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/soal/large/wmr_soal_ldsal_320_scharf_xviii_large.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uxTo8whAKN8/UQ6zOwWiM-I/AAAAAAAAAoM/dVaS5Jxk8ao/s1600/eddy4.jpg

Keep in mind that hair colour does sometimes change with age, too. Both Edward and Richard might have had hair like mine - I was a blonde child, by my teens my hair was dirty blonde or light brown, in my early twenties it was reddish light brown but looked almost golden in bright sunlight, and then it started getting increasingly brown. I'm now 30 and in certain lighting it looks like Richard's in the SoA portrait, and in different lighting it looks auburn. So Edward might easily have been fair in both senses of the word as a teenager, and brown-haired in his thirties.

Also, if Richard existed in the no man's land between light brown and auburn hair, he might have had the kind of pale skin that burns more easily than it tans. In that case he would have had to protect himself from the sun and had pale skin, no matter how much he spent time outdoors.

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Edwards' estimated 2800+ miles covered in 26 months, but thought that an underestimate. She guessed 3000 miles would be about right.

Carol responds:

But what would that amount to in terms of time? Did he spend, say, a third of his waking hours outdoors? And, of course, his duties as king would have been different from his duties as duke of Gloucester where he probably could spend most of his time at home when he wasn't on campaign against the Scots.

Imagine what he would think of me, 527 years after his death, worrying about his complexion!

Carol

Good lord!! They are both awful!! They took the " dark one" to the extreme! The cover designer, if alive, should be hunted down and the real picture should be taped to his head!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 17, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)
>
> > For those who know "The Broken Sword" as "Some Touch of Pity," here's the
> > awful cover that Ishita and I are talking about:
>
> Oh, yes, that's bad, but I don't know that it's neccessarily *worse* than
> the Greek waiter one, which is about halfway down the page here:
> http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife/15C.html
>
>

Thanks Claire for clarifying that( smiley face )
I am trying to stick to the 5.2-5.4 as more moderate estimation. I tend to agree with Carol that he would have looked really strange if his torso was too short and legs disproportionately long. Also I think( with no evidence) that he might have worn back braces that sort of straightened his torso so that it looked more balanced.
At the end we are all speculating and I hope to god they write a thorough paper on his condition!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:09 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:38 PM
> Subject: 4'8" would likely really hurt
>
> > Would he, though? The Leicester team said he could have been as short as
> > 4'8".
>
> I think it was me, not Ishita. I'm sure we can assume he wasn't as short as
> 4'8", but the point I was trying to make was that I don't think we can
> assume he was as much as 5'4" either, although he can't really have been
> less than 5'1" without ending up looking like a gibbon. Above that, he
> would just look like a short guy with long limbs, not odd enough to incite
> comment.
>
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray

> For what it's worth, the picture I saw of the skull matched to the NPG
> portrait isn't the same as in the Files section. Now that I look at the
> one I saw more closely, the chin on the skull is indeed longer than on the
> portrait. Interesting. (I can just imagine the original portrait painters
> thinking that chin NEEDS to be photoshopped...)

Complete with ginger bristles, if his valet (or whatever they called them
then) hadn't had a chance to shave him yet....

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt

> I am trying to stick to the 5.2-5.4 as more moderate estimation. I tend to
> agree with Carol that he would have looked really strange if his torso was
> too short and legs disproportionately long. Also I think( with no
> evidence) that he might have worn back braces that sort of straightened
> his torso so that it looked more balanced.

I dunno if braces would have been invented then. But when he was in armour
the armour would have given him a lot of support, especially as the fashion
was for the skin-tight "German Gothic" style, and if he stuck to wearing the
same armour long term I suppose that would tend to prevent the curve from
getting any worse than it was when the armour was fitted.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> Loved your description of the "particularly mournful Greek waiter." I
> linked to an image of the cover in another post, so you can let me know if
> it's the same one.

No, different, but equally awful.

> Was it Pamela Tudor-Craig who persuaded them to clean it, or perhaps did
> it herself, along with X-rays of the paintings?

I don't know - very probably. I've a vague idea that she saw on X-ray that
the original corner decorations were quite different from what had been
painted over them.

> I'll stick with the idea that "Richard liveth yet" is mere filler in the
> English version of the poem (the Latin version contains no such line for
> either father or son).

Oh, right. Still, he must have been a scrawny, fluffy little chick, with
those fine bones.

> It's interesting that the oldest, Henry, is referred to as "my lord
> Harry." He must have lived beyond infancy to be thought of in that way.

I didn't know there *was* an older one!

> Imagine *him* living and becoming Henry VIII! No Edward IV--and Richard
> could have remained Duke of Gloucester or whatever dukedom that brother
> gave him.

Probably have ended up as a priest. He'd have enjoyed the scholarship and
geeky wrangling and caring for the poor, but probably not the celibacy.

> But that's too iffy. I like my fantasy of Edmund living and keeping Edward
> in check better. No secret marriages for you, brother. You have to behave
> like a king!

Yes. We know nothing about him, afaik, but I too see Edmund as a very
sensible boy.

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?

In the portrait I have of her - the one with the gauzy headdress - she too
has hazel eyes and her hair appears to be very fine and thin, and a sort of
strawberry blonde.

> I don't think Edward was particularly dark; his hair looks similar to
> Richard's in the portraits below,

He's not as dark as I remembered him - maybe his portraits have also been
cleaned!

> and his eyes were probably hazel rather than brown.

Either hazel or very dark grey, in his SoA portrait (the first one of
these).

> Keep in mind that hair colour does sometimes change with age, too.

True - also it gets lighter if you're out in the sun a lot.

> Also, if Richard existed in the no man's land between light brown and
> auburn hair, he might have had the kind of pale skin that burns more
> easily than it tans. In that case he would have had to protect himself
> from the sun and had pale skin, no matter how much he spent time outdoors.

Also true although I'm not sure how much he *could* protect himself from the
sun.

Carol earlier:

> > It's interesting that the oldest, Henry, is referred to as "my lord Harry." He must have lived beyond infancy to be thought of in that way.

Claire responded:

> I didn't know there *was* an older one!

Carol again:

Yep. Caroline Halsted includes the whole rhyme in one of her appendices. I'll just include some relevant lines since I can't copy and paste from Google Books:

. . . Sir, after the tyme of long bareynesse
God first sent Anne, which signyfieth grace,
. . . Harry, Edward, and Edmonde, eche in his place
Succeeded [then Elizabeth, Margaret, William, John, George, and Thomas, three of whom have already "passed to God's grace"]
Richard liveth yet. But last of all,
Was Ursula. To hym God list call."

At this point, it looks as if the eldest son, Harry (Henry) is still alive, but then he adds:

To the Duke of Excestre, Anne married is
In her tender years. But my lord Harry
God chosen hath, to inherite heaven's bliss;
And left Edward to succeed temporally,
Now earle of Marche; and Edmonde of Rutland sothely . . .

Anyway, I find the reference to "Lord Harry" and the belated mention of his death intriguing. It makes me wonder when Edward and Edmund were made earls, which could only have been after "lord Harry's" death. The earliest date for the rhyme would be 1455, the year Ursula was born and died.

Here's the long old URL for the Google Books page:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lVkWcpHOZXgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Caroline+Halsted&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iG1GUYtBiuHKAcnDgKAF&sqi=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=liveth&f=false

If it doesn't work, just look up Caroline Halsted, "Richard III as Duke of Gloucester and King of England" in Google Books and search for "liveth." You'll find two "hits," a quick reference in the main text and the full poem in the appendix.

One more side note: A lot of fictional works include a daughter named Joan (after Cecily's mother, Joan Beaufort) as the first child, but she doesn't appear in this poem or William of Worcester's list (which omits Thomas) or the Clare Roll, which according to Marie matches the poem. Evidently, the source of the Joan myth is (drum roll, please!) the noted "historian" Alison Weir.

If anyone can find solid evidence of Joan's existence, please post it.

Carol

>>>
although he can't really have been
less than 5'1" without ending up looking like a gibbon<<<

Claire, you created such a picture in my mind that I nearly choked on my morning tea!
Sandra

It seems 'Unlikely' that Warwick's daughter would be a 'Shrinking violet'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:49
>Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>
>
> 
>I don't know if this incident really happened but I love it! Such a Cinderella-esq story.......I know it's not very scholarly of me to indulge in this story ( says timidly).
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>www.ishitabandyo.com
>www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
>www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
>On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>> Did someone mention the cookshop story?? What went on there? ...I would love to know. My personal theory is that it was Anne herself who done a runner and hid in the cookshop...perhaps with the aid of a servant..how else would she have known the proprietor of such an establishment...then managed to get a message to Richard who then took her to sanctuary at St Martins..Quite a boomy young lady and not the wilting violet novelists love to portray her as.... The rest is history....Eileen
>>
>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think you are a little hard on George, but that's just my personal opinion. Warwick's wife was not reconciled to her sister until four years' after Warwick's negotiations. I'm sure he didn't know at the time of the Bona of Savoy negotiations, but he could well have known by 1468/69. We don't really know about George and the cookshop story either, do we? And I would say Richard was just as acquisitive as he was over the Warwick lands. If Richard had a weakness coming from his analysed insecurity, it was in securing lands so his future was assured. And one can hardly blame him, or George. Edward, as several here have said, was not a particularly nice guy.
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 15:13
>> > Subject: Re: Anne Mowbray
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Carol earlier:
>> >
>> > > > But whether he was supporting George or Henry, it was Edward IV he wanted to dethrone and only his claim, not his son's that concerned him.
>> >
>> > Claire responded:
>> > > Do we know that? After all, successful candidacy by either George or Henry VI would in the long term put one of Warwick's daughters on the throne and make his future grandson (if any) king, whereas if Edward's son came to power that wouldn't happen.
>> >
>> > Carol again:
>> >
>> > If they toppled (or killed) Edward, his infant son would never come to power. I don't know if George would condone the killing of his baby nephew, but given his treatment of his sister-in-law Anne, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to place EW and her daughters in a nunnery and baby Edward in a monastery, and Warwick might have been even more merciless. The point, as I said, was to dethrone Edward himself, aided by propaganda such as the Blaybourne story. If Edward's claim was invalid, the claims of his children would also be invalid. And while we do know that both Warwick and George declared Edward to be a bastard and it seems likely (though not proven) that George later made a similar claim about Edward's children, there's no evidence that Warwick said anything about or even knew about the Butler marriage. As someone else pointed out, his negotiations with the King of France for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy strongly indicate that
he
>> > knew nothing of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler.
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I still keep banging on about the fact that no contemporary friend or foe ever mentioned anything wrong with him apart from one shoulder higher than the other. I'd hoped the conference would put this right on 2nd, but clearly it didn't.
Someone with some authority really does need to shout out Lyn Foxhall's statement that he did not have kyphosis.


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 7:21
Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt


 

>>>
although he can't really have been
less than 5'1" without ending up looking like a gibbon<<<

Claire, you created such a picture in my mind that I nearly choked on my morning tea!
Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt


> I still keep banging on about the fact that no contemporary friend or foe
> ever mentioned anything wrong with him apart from one shoulder higher than
> the other. I'd hoped the conference would put this right on 2nd, but
> clearly it didn't.
Someone with some authority really does need to shout out Lyn Foxhall's
statement that he did not have kyphosis.

And the curvature cannot have knocked more than 7" off his height. 5'1" is
the point at which his fingertips would be 3½" above the knee which I reckon
is probably the furthest point at which he would just look like a guy with
proportionately rather long limbs (not likely to be remarked on), and beyond
which he would start to look noticeably abnormal (likely to be remarked on).

Didn't someone, and I've not a clue who (help!) say that the DOY was small and dark and that Richard featured him? I think that's where the bit about Richard being dark came from, as well as the uncleaned portraits.



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:52
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it's interesting how one interprets 'fair'. Edward was supposed to be fair, golden etc, yet in his portraits he is dark haired with brown eyes. Does fair in this context mean handsome, as it did for queens, who were always portrayed as blond like the virgin? EW has brown hair when you examine her portraits.
>

Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?

I don't think Edward was particularly dark; his hair looks similar to Richard's in the portraits below, and his eyes were probably hazel rather than brown. If Anne was a redhead with hazel eyes (as the coronation portrait suggests), then Cecily might have had the red hair/hazel eyes gene from the Nevilles. (No idea about the Duke of York's side.)

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/soal/large/wmr_soal_ldsal_320_scharf_xviii_large.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uxTo8whAKN8/UQ6zOwWiM-I/AAAAAAAAAoM/dVaS5Jxk8ao/s1600/eddy4.jpg

Keep in mind that hair colour does sometimes change with age, too. Both Edward and Richard might have had hair like mine - I was a blonde child, by my teens my hair was dirty blonde or light brown, in my early twenties it was reddish light brown but looked almost golden in bright sunlight, and then it started getting increasingly brown. I'm now 30 and in certain lighting it looks like Richard's in the SoA portrait, and in different lighting it looks auburn. So Edward might easily have been fair in both senses of the word as a teenager, and brown-haired in his thirties.

Also, if Richard existed in the no man's land between light brown and auburn hair, he might have had the kind of pale skin that burns more easily than it tans. In that case he would have had to protect himself from the sun and had pale skin, no matter how much he spent time outdoors.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?
>
> In the portrait I have of her - the one with the gauzy headdress - she too
> has hazel eyes and her hair appears to be very fine and thin, and a sort of
> strawberry blonde.
>

Yes, it does look reddish in that portrait - but I seem to remember EW was described as having pale gold hair?

I may have got that particular colour mixed up with her daughter Mary's hair, though (that's what comes up when I try to look this up on Google!). But wasn't there *something* special about EW's hair or is my memory playing tricks on me?

Hello, I believe that when Edward's tomb was opened it was found that he had chestnut hair which is fairly dark, Richard's may have been the same or a bit darker.
I can't remember where its written but some persons asked about Richard after his death said that in looks he resembled his father.
"A chip off the old block" you might say.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't someone, and I've not a clue who (help!) say that the DOY was small and dark and that Richard featured him? I think that's where the bit about Richard being dark came from, as well as the uncleaned portraits.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)
>
>  
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's interesting how one interprets 'fair'. Edward was supposed to be fair, golden etc, yet in his portraits he is dark haired with brown eyes. Does fair in this context mean handsome, as it did for queens, who were always portrayed as blond like the virgin? EW has brown hair when you examine her portraits.
> >
>
> Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?
>
> I don't think Edward was particularly dark; his hair looks similar to Richard's in the portraits below, and his eyes were probably hazel rather than brown. If Anne was a redhead with hazel eyes (as the coronation portrait suggests), then Cecily might have had the red hair/hazel eyes gene from the Nevilles. (No idea about the Duke of York's side.)
>
> http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/soal/large/wmr_soal_ldsal_320_scharf_xviii_large.jpg
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uxTo8whAKN8/UQ6zOwWiM-I/AAAAAAAAAoM/dVaS5Jxk8ao/s1600/eddy4.jpg
>
> Keep in mind that hair colour does sometimes change with age, too. Both Edward and Richard might have had hair like mine - I was a blonde child, by my teens my hair was dirty blonde or light brown, in my early twenties it was reddish light brown but looked almost golden in bright sunlight, and then it started getting increasingly brown. I'm now 30 and in certain lighting it looks like Richard's in the SoA portrait, and in different lighting it looks auburn. So Edward might easily have been fair in both senses of the word as a teenager, and brown-haired in his thirties.
>
> Also, if Richard existed in the no man's land between light brown and auburn hair, he might have had the kind of pale skin that burns more easily than it tans. In that case he would have had to protect himself from the sun and had pale skin, no matter how much he spent time outdoors.
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have never seen that second portrait of Edward that you posted. It must be of him as a young man. Is it just me or does he look a bit like Richard in the NPG portrait? Where is that portrait of Edward now?

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's interesting how one interprets 'fair'. Edward was supposed to be fair, golden etc, yet in his portraits he is dark haired with brown eyes. Does fair in this context mean handsome, as it did for queens, who were always portrayed as blond like the virgin? EW has brown hair when you examine her portraits.
> >
>
>
> Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?
>
> I don't think Edward was particularly dark; his hair looks similar to Richard's in the portraits below, and his eyes were probably hazel rather than brown. If Anne was a redhead with hazel eyes (as the coronation portrait suggests), then Cecily might have had the red hair/hazel eyes gene from the Nevilles. (No idea about the Duke of York's side.)
>
> http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/soal/large/wmr_soal_ldsal_320_scharf_xviii_large.jpg
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uxTo8whAKN8/UQ6zOwWiM-I/AAAAAAAAAoM/dVaS5Jxk8ao/s1600/eddy4.jpg
>
> Keep in mind that hair colour does sometimes change with age, too. Both Edward and Richard might have had hair like mine - I was a blonde child, by my teens my hair was dirty blonde or light brown, in my early twenties it was reddish light brown but looked almost golden in bright sunlight, and then it started getting increasingly brown. I'm now 30 and in certain lighting it looks like Richard's in the SoA portrait, and in different lighting it looks auburn. So Edward might easily have been fair in both senses of the word as a teenager, and brown-haired in his thirties.
>
> Also, if Richard existed in the no man's land between light brown and auburn hair, he might have had the kind of pale skin that burns more easily than it tans. In that case he would have had to protect himself from the sun and had pale skin, no matter how much he spent time outdoors.
>

As far as I know, there's not contemporary description of Elizabeth
Woodville's coloring, but I couldn't swear to it. In novels, she's often a
white blonde or, to quote Josephine Tey, who is quoting someone else,
"gilt" blonde. It's become popular, I guess, but as far as I know, it
wasn't noted as such during her lifetime.

Of course, you know, it may not have been totally natural! Here's one of
my favorite excerpts from one of my favorite "history" anthologies, _The
Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_, by the late, great Will Cuppy.
This is from his chapter on Lucrezia Borgia:

"She [Lucrezia] was not an ugly girl, either, though she was not the raving
beauty of song and story. She was fairly pretty, with a strong nose, a
retreating chin, and eyes of indeterminate color. But she had a nice
figure, and men of the Renaissance noticed those things. She also had
bright yellow hair, which she washed once a week with a mixture of saffron,
box shavings, wood ash, barley straw, madder, cumin seed, and one thing and
another to bring out the hidden glints and restore its natural color. You
left it on your head for twenty-four hours and washed it off with lye made
of cabbage stalks, the only hazard of which was the second-degree burn. If
your hair remained on the scalp, you were a blonde.

Some people still prefer to think of her as a brunette. If it makes them
happy, that's all right with me."

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:04 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan"
> <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?
> >
> > In the portrait I have of her - the one with the gauzy headdress - she
> too
> > has hazel eyes and her hair appears to be very fine and thin, and a sort
> of
> > strawberry blonde.
> >
>
> Yes, it does look reddish in that portrait - but I seem to remember EW was
> described as having pale gold hair?
>
> I may have got that particular colour mixed up with her daughter Mary's
> hair, though (that's what comes up when I try to look this up on Google!).
> But wasn't there *something* special about EW's hair or is my memory
> playing tricks on me?
>
>
>

Didn't George B's osteologist comment that the skeleton didn't look quite right and would have looked totally different when tissue was present? It was in a post a few weeks ago. Hopefully there will be a proper re-construction.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I still keep banging on about the fact that no contemporary friend or foe ever mentioned anything wrong with him apart from one shoulder higher than the other. I'd hoped the conference would put this right on 2nd, but clearly it didn't.
> Someone with some authority really does need to shout out Lyn Foxhall's statement that he did not have kyphosis.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 7:21
> Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt
>
>
>  
>
> >>>
> although he can't really have been
> less than 5'1" without ending up looking like a gibbon<<<
>
> Claire, you created such a picture in my mind that I nearly choked on my morning tea!
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I have never seen that second portrait of Edward that you posted. It must be of him as a young man. Is it just me or does he look a bit like Richard in the NPG portrait? Where is that portrait of Edward now?
>

NPG, apparently:
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02028/King-Edward-IV?LinkID=mp01427&search=sas&sText=edward+iv&role=sit&rNo=0

I can see what you mean about the resemblance, but bizarrely, I think he looks even more like his own wife in it!! And I'd have guessed it was painted by the same artist as EW's portrait, except that it appears to be a late 16th-century picture (copy?).

Thank you for that Pansy.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I have never seen that second portrait of Edward that you posted. It must be of him as a young man. Is it just me or does he look a bit like Richard in the NPG portrait? Where is that portrait of Edward now?
> >
>
> NPG, apparently:
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02028/King-Edward-IV?LinkID=mp01427&search=sas&sText=edward+iv&role=sit&rNo=0
>
> I can see what you mean about the resemblance, but bizarrely, I think he looks even more like his own wife in it!! And I'd have guessed it was painted by the same artist as EW's portrait, except that it appears to be a late 16th-century picture (copy?).
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> Didn't someone, and I've not a clue who (help!) say that the DOY was small
> and dark and that Richard featured him? I think that's where the bit about
> Richard being dark came from, as well as the uncleaned portraits.

Iirc somebody contemporary or near-contemporary - it may have been More -
said that during the run-up to Titulus Regius gossip was put about about
Edward not being the Duke of York's son (which he may not have been!), and
that the same peoiple pointed out that Richard looked a lot more like the
late Duke of York than Edward did. But I don't think the *way* in which he
looked more like him was described.

Wow, that is a little hard for blondes!!! Yikes, lye??? We had an employee years ago who had the most beautiful white blond hair, and it was 100% natural. But that is really rare here. I think maybe more Nordic.



-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria Torres
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

As far as I know, there's not contemporary description of Elizabeth Woodville's coloring, but I couldn't swear to it. In novels, she's often a white blonde or, to quote Josephine Tey, who is quoting someone else, "gilt" blonde. It's become popular, I guess, but as far as I know, it wasn't noted as such during her lifetime.

Of course, you know, it may not have been totally natural! Here's one of my favorite excerpts from one of my favorite "history" anthologies, _The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_, by the late, great Will Cuppy.
This is from his chapter on Lucrezia Borgia:

"She [Lucrezia] was not an ugly girl, either, though she was not the raving beauty of song and story. She was fairly pretty, with a strong nose, a retreating chin, and eyes of indeterminate color. But she had a nice figure, and men of the Renaissance noticed those things. She also had bright yellow hair, which she washed once a week with a mixture of saffron, box shavings, wood ash, barley straw, madder, cumin seed, and one thing and another to bring out the hidden glints and restore its natural color. You left it on your head for twenty-four hours and washed it off with lye made of cabbage stalks, the only hazard of which was the second-degree burn. If your hair remained on the scalp, you were a blonde.

Some people still prefer to think of her as a brunette. If it makes them happy, that's all right with me."

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:04 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan"
> <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?
> >
> > In the portrait I have of her - the one with the gauzy headdress -
> > she
> too
> > has hazel eyes and her hair appears to be very fine and thin, and a
> > sort
> of
> > strawberry blonde.
> >
>
> Yes, it does look reddish in that portrait - but I seem to remember EW
> was described as having pale gold hair?
>
> I may have got that particular colour mixed up with her daughter
> Mary's hair, though (that's what comes up when I try to look this up on Google!).
> But wasn't there *something* special about EW's hair or is my memory
> playing tricks on me?
>
>
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> As far as I know, there's not contemporary description of Elizabeth
> Woodville's coloring, but I couldn't swear to it. In novels, she's often
> a
> white blonde or, to quote Josephine Tey, who is quoting someone else,
> "gilt" blonde.

Well - I would think gilt blond would be a bit reddish, like gold, so that
would match her portrait and Tey may just have been going from the painting.

> Of course, you know, it may not have been totally natural! Here's one of
> my favorite excerpts from one of my favorite "history" anthologies, _The
> Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_, by the late, great Will Cuppy.
> This is from his chapter on Lucrezia Borgia:

I love it.

Here's a site about spine therapies throughout history:

http://harms-spinesurgery.com/src/plugin.php?m=harms.SKO06I

Braces as such seem to have come into use in the sixteenth century. I
remember reading that Catherine the Great was forced to wear a very
uncomfortable brace for her scoliosis. I also remember that when she was a
young archduchess in Russia, she was described as slender but not supple,
which may have been a result of scoliosis.

Maria
ejbronte@...










On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:37 AM
> Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt
>
>
> > I am trying to stick to the 5.2-5.4 as more moderate estimation. I tend
> to
> > agree with Carol that he would have looked really strange if his torso
> was
> > too short and legs disproportionately long. Also I think( with no
> > evidence) that he might have worn back braces that sort of straightened
> > his torso so that it looked more balanced.
>
> I dunno if braces would have been invented then. But when he was in armour
> the armour would have given him a lot of support, especially as the
> fashion
> was for the skin-tight "German Gothic" style, and if he stuck to wearing
> the
> same armour long term I suppose that would tend to prevent the curve from
> getting any worse than it was when the armour was fitted.
>
>
>

--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello, I believe that when Edward's tomb was opened it was found that he had chestnut hair which is fairly dark, Richard's may have been the same or a bit darker.
>

Interesting - I'd have thought of chestnut as a red-brown, but then I'm thinking about horses here!

EW's idealised picture (I won't call it a portrait) for, I think, the Company of Skinners (1472) has EW with long blond hair, as does the Canterbury window. But, as Laynesmith points out, medieval queens were expected to be portrayed as ressembling the Virgin, who was idealised in her portraiture as blond, even though she couldn't have been. In her most famous portrait, the hair in front of EW's henin is brown and her eyes are brown.
I'm talking about the NPG picture of Edward where again he has brown, not golden hair and darker eyes than Richard.  
So are we talking about 'fair' meaning handsome? H
 

________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 14:15
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

As far as I know, there's not contemporary description of Elizabeth
Woodville's coloring, but I couldn't swear to it.  In novels, she's often a
white blonde or, to quote Josephine Tey, who is quoting someone else,
"gilt" blonde.  It's become popular, I guess, but as far as I know, it
wasn't noted as such during her lifetime.

Of course, you know, it may not have been totally natural!  Here's one of
my favorite excerpts from one of my favorite "history" anthologies, _The
Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_, by the late, great Will Cuppy.
This is from his chapter on Lucrezia Borgia:

"She [Lucrezia] was not an ugly girl, either, though she was not the raving
beauty of song and story. She was fairly pretty, with a strong nose, a
retreating chin, and eyes of indeterminate color. But she had a nice
figure, and men of the Renaissance noticed those things. She also had
bright yellow hair, which she washed once a week with a mixture of saffron,
box shavings, wood ash, barley straw, madder, cumin seed, and one thing and
another to bring out the hidden glints and restore its natural color. You
left it on your head for twenty-four hours and washed it off with lye made
of cabbage stalks, the only hazard of which was the second-degree burn. If
your hair remained on the scalp, you were a blonde.

Some people still prefer to think of her as a brunette. If it makes them
happy, that's all right with me."

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:04 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan"
> <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?
> >
> > In the portrait I have of her - the one with the gauzy headdress - she
> too
> > has hazel eyes and her hair appears to be very fine and thin, and a sort
> of
> > strawberry blonde.
> >
>
> Yes, it does look reddish in that portrait - but I seem to remember EW was
> described as having pale gold hair?
>
> I may have got that particular colour mixed up with her daughter Mary's
> hair, though (that's what comes up when I try to look this up on Google!).
> But wasn't there *something* special about EW's hair or is my memory
> playing tricks on me?
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>
> So are we talking about 'fair' meaning handsome? H
>  


Or fair-skinned...?

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I still keep banging on about the fact that no contemporary friend or foe ever mentioned anything wrong with him apart from one shoulder higher than the other. I'd hoped the conference would put this right on 2nd, but clearly it didn't.
> Someone with some authority really does need to shout out Lyn Foxhall's statement that he did not have kyphosis.

Carol responds:

Apparently, Lin Foxhall did speak up on at least one comment site. Hopefully, her published findings in the journal "Antiquity" (whenever they come out) will be reprinted all over the Internet and reconfirm what she said earlier. And the Scoliosis Association evidently has some plans to take action. They were very upset about Jo Appleby's use of "hunchback" in the first documentary (fortunately, not repeated in the press conferences or the second documentary).

She does have the authority to make that statement, but it will be good to see it backed up by other scientists.

I haven't seen the March 2 press conference. Is it online anywhere? Possibly the kyphosis vs. scoliosis distinction wasn't mentioned there because Dr. Foxhall thought that it had already been firmly established. If so, she underestimates the obstinate persistence of ignorance and prejudice.

Carol

Entirely possible: I have (or had; there's a lot more gray now.....) dark
hair, but my skin, which burns, is suitable for several shades of red hair
dye (which I'm very lazy about). I can also do some blond shades, if I so
desire, but I like red. My father, who was a Southern Spaniard, had very
light skin, and very dark hair, and so does the majority of his family. My
mother's family is East European Jewish. She had olive skin, but green
eyes (which she bequeathed to none of us!). My siblings took her coloring,
and I have more of my father's. He was average height; my mother was
short.

Maria
ejbronte@...



On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So are we talking about 'fair' meaning handsome? H
> >
>
> Or fair-skinned...?
>
>
>

I think the Society has plans to give a summary online but I haven't looked for a day or two. My guess is it wasn't mentioned because Leicester didn't field an archeaologist or other 'expert' who could answer the question. Such a shame because it's one of the most important points used by the More/Shakespeare camp to validate their opinions. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I still keep banging on about the fact that no contemporary friend or foe ever mentioned anything wrong with him apart from one shoulder higher than the other. I'd hoped the conference would put this right on 2nd, but clearly it didn't.
> Someone with some authority really does need to shout out Lyn Foxhall's statement that he did not have kyphosis.

Carol responds:

Apparently, Lin Foxhall did speak up on at least one comment site. Hopefully, her published findings in the journal "Antiquity" (whenever they come out) will be reprinted all over the Internet and reconfirm what she said earlier. And the Scoliosis Association evidently has some plans to take action. They were very upset about Jo Appleby's use of "hunchback" in the first documentary (fortunately, not repeated in the press conferences or the second documentary).

She does have the authority to make that statement, but it will be good to see it backed up by other scientists.

I haven't seen the March 2 press conference. Is it online anywhere? Possibly the kyphosis vs. scoliosis distinction wasn't mentioned there because Dr. Foxhall thought that it had already been firmly established. If so, she underestimates the obstinate persistence of ignorance and prejudice.

Carol

Yes, and as another poster said, there is a tendency for fair hair to go darker, rather than greyer with age.



________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 14:48
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

Entirely possible:  I have (or had; there's a lot more gray now.....) dark
hair, but my skin, which burns, is suitable for several shades of red hair
dye (which I'm very lazy about). I can also do some blond shades, if I so
desire, but I like red.  My father, who was a Southern Spaniard, had very
light skin, and very dark hair, and so does the majority of his family.  My
mother's family is East European Jewish.  She had olive skin, but green
eyes (which she bequeathed to none of us!).  My siblings took her coloring,
and I have more of my father's.  He was average height; my mother was
short.

Maria
ejbronte@...



On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So are we talking about 'fair' meaning handsome? H
> >
>
> Or fair-skinned...?
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Did Mrs Weir ever say where she found Joan ?  We know she doesn't use footnotes and frankly if she's not in those other sources, it seems unlikely she existed.



________________________________


Carol said :

One more side note: A lot of fictional works include a daughter named Joan (after Cecily's mother, Joan Beaufort) as the first child, but she doesn't appear in this poem or William of Worcester's list (which omits Thomas) or the Clare Roll, which according to Marie matches the poem. Evidently, the source of the Joan myth is (drum roll, please!) the noted "historian" Alison Weir.

If anyone can find solid evidence of Joan's existence, please post it.

Carol

Yes, my father had a mop top of curly white blond hair, which turned darker. He died with those same white blond curls!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)



Yes, and as another poster said, there is a tendency for fair hair to go darker, rather than greyer with age.

________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...<mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 14:48
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

Entirely possible: I have (or had; there's a lot more gray now.....) dark
hair, but my skin, which burns, is suitable for several shades of red hair
dye (which I'm very lazy about). I can also do some blond shades, if I so
desire, but I like red. My father, who was a Southern Spaniard, had very
light skin, and very dark hair, and so does the majority of his family. My
mother's family is East European Jewish. She had olive skin, but green
eyes (which she bequeathed to none of us!). My siblings took her coloring,
and I have more of my father's. He was average height; my mother was
short.

Maria
ejbronte@...<mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So are we talking about 'fair' meaning handsome? H
> >
>
> Or fair-skinned...?
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> And the curvature cannot have knocked more than 7" off his height. 5'1" is the point at which his fingertips would be 3½" above the knee which I reckon is probably the furthest point at which he would just look like a guy with proportionately rather long limbs (not likely to be remarked on), and beyond which he would start to look noticeably abnormal (likely to be remarked on).

Carol responds:

I've been reading about scoliosis and height online. Unless the onset is in adulthood or old age, the largest amount of height loss I've seen mentioned is four to five inches, and most accounts state between two and three inches for severe scoliosis. Our Jo was speaking prematurely, I'm afraid. We need to hear from experts in the field (orthopedists?) before we accept her statement, which does not appear to be supported by the evidence of the skeleton itself or by historical accounts. I think that even seven inches would have made his torso so shrunken atop those longish legs that many people, especially Commynes, Louis XI, and other enemies, would have commented. Instead, all we get is the raised shoulder mentioned by a single commentator, Rous (who also has him being two years in his mother's womb).

Carol

From her own equally fertile imagination, no doubt, deliberately making Richard one of thirteen.
As you all probably know, Richard's collateral descendants have been my main concern for ten years now and one of the few general books on this is by her. You couldn't pay me to borrow it.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)



Did Mrs Weir ever say where she found Joan ? We know she doesn't use footnotes and frankly if she's not in those other sources, it seems unlikely she existed.

________________________________

Carol said :

One more side note: A lot of fictional works include a daughter named Joan (after Cecily's mother, Joan Beaufort) as the first child, but she doesn't appear in this poem or William of Worcester's list (which omits Thomas) or the Clare Roll, which according to Marie matches the poem. Evidently, the source of the Joan myth is (drum roll, please!) the noted "historian" Alison Weir.

If anyone can find solid evidence of Joan's existence, please post it.

Carol

And remember Louis XI had a daughter with severe scoliosis, whose disability was thoroughly noted.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:29
Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt

 

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> And the curvature cannot have knocked more than 7" off his height. 5'1" is the point at which his fingertips would be 3½" above the knee which I reckon is probably the furthest point at which he would just look like a guy with proportionately rather long limbs (not likely to be remarked on), and beyond which he would start to look noticeably abnormal (likely to be remarked on).

Carol responds:

I've been reading about scoliosis and height online. Unless the onset is in adulthood or old age, the largest amount of height loss I've seen mentioned is four to five inches, and most accounts state between two and three inches for severe scoliosis. Our Jo was speaking prematurely, I'm afraid. We need to hear from experts in the field (orthopedists?) before we accept her statement, which does not appear to be supported by the evidence of the skeleton itself or by historical accounts. I think that even seven inches would have made his torso so shrunken atop those longish legs that many people, especially Commynes, Louis XI, and other enemies, would have commented. Instead, all we get is the raised shoulder mentioned by a single commentator, Rous (who also has him being two years in his mother's womb).

Carol

She also says Alys Burgh (possible mother of John of Pomfret/Gloucester) had a sister Isabel who also worked as a nurse for Clarence. Anyone know where that comes from? I can't find it. H

.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

 

From her own equally fertile imagination, no doubt, deliberately making Richard one of thirteen.
As you all probably know, Richard's collateral descendants have been my main concern for ten years now and one of the few general books on this is by her. You couldn't pay me to borrow it.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

Did Mrs Weir ever say where she found Joan ? We know she doesn't use footnotes and frankly if she's not in those other sources, it seems unlikely she existed.

________________________________

Carol said :

One more side note: A lot of fictional works include a daughter named Joan (after Cecily's mother, Joan Beaufort) as the first child, but she doesn't appear in this poem or William of Worcester's list (which omits Thomas) or the Clare Roll, which according to Marie matches the poem. Evidently, the source of the Joan myth is (drum roll, please!) the noted "historian" Alison Weir.

If anyone can find solid evidence of Joan's existence, please post it.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> She also says Alys Burgh (possible mother of John of Pomfret/Gloucester) had a sister Isabel who also worked as a nurse for Clarence. Anyone know where that comes from? I can't find it. H
>

Speaking of Alice Burgh, am I missing something about the 'evidence' or isn't it equally possible that she was simply the nurse for Richard's illegitimate children? Considering that John of Pomfret was probably brought up in, you know, Pontefract.

Except that he seems to have been making a much greater payment to her over a significant period of time than he did to Katherine Haute; he was still making it as king and refers to her as 'his beloved gentlewoman' in 1474; hardly a term for a nurse. But yes, she could have been just a nurse but it's a lot of money. I did say possible. I was asking if anyone knew about a supposed sister Isabel, I've looked in Horrox, but I can't find her.
 

________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 16:04
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> She also says Alys Burgh (possible mother of John of Pomfret/Gloucester) had a sister Isabel who also worked as a nurse for Clarence. Anyone know where that comes from? I can't find it. H
>

Speaking of Alice Burgh, am I missing something about the 'evidence' or isn't it equally possible that she was simply the nurse for Richard's illegitimate children? Considering that John of Pomfret was probably brought up in, you know, Pontefract.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Except that he seems to have been making a much greater payment to her over a significant period of time than he did to Katherine Haute; he was still making it as king and refers to her as 'his beloved gentlewoman' in 1474; hardly a term for a nurse. But yes, she could have been just a nurse but it's a lot of money. I did say possible. I was asking if anyone knew about a supposed sister Isabel, I've looked in Horrox, but I can't find her.
>

Sorry, didn't mean to butt in with my off-topic inquiry! But as we don't know Alice Burgh's age, isn't it also possible she might have been (for instance) Richard's own beloved childhood nurse and then nurse to his children? (Children and the care they require at whatever age are a complete mystery to me, so I might be using the wrong term: let's say 'childminder' or 'daycare provider' ;))

Of course she might have been a mistress - or anything else, who knows - but I've never understood why the payments in themselves are thought of as evidence for her being his mistress, so I was wondering if there's any other evidence that I'm unaware of.

(I also don't think that, in the context of the time, 'beloved gentlewoman' is such a loaded phrase that it seems now; nor do I think it inappropriate for a nurse/childminder/whatever, who would have been, in this social sphere, a gentlewoman anyway.)

No problem, your questions are valid. That's why if we perhaps knew more about Weir's Isabel it might help us. We do know the name of R's nurse, I'm pretty sure, but I can't recall it without looking it up.


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 16:33
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Except that he seems to have been making a much greater payment to her over a significant period of time than he did to Katherine Haute; he was still making it as king and refers to her as 'his beloved gentlewoman' in 1474; hardly a term for a nurse. But yes, she could have been just a nurse but it's a lot of money. I did say possible. I was asking if anyone knew about a supposed sister Isabel, I've looked in Horrox, but I can't find her.
>

Sorry, didn't mean to butt in with my off-topic inquiry! But as we don't know Alice Burgh's age, isn't it also possible she might have been (for instance) Richard's own beloved childhood nurse and then nurse to his children? (Children and the care they require at whatever age are a complete mystery to me, so I might be using the wrong term: let's say 'childminder' or 'daycare provider' ;))

Of course she might have been a mistress - or anything else, who knows - but I've never understood why the payments in themselves are thought of as evidence for her being his mistress, so I was wondering if there's any other evidence that I'm unaware of.

(I also don't think that, in the context of the time, 'beloved gentlewoman' is such a loaded phrase that it seems now; nor do I think it inappropriate for a nurse/childminder/whatever, who would have been, in this social sphere, a gentlewoman anyway.)

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Didn't someone, and I've not a clue who (help!) say that the DOY was small and dark and that Richard featured him? I think that's where the bit about Richard being dark came from, as well as the uncleaned portraits.

Carol responds:

Vergil states that the preacher Ralph Shaa mentioned a resemblance between Richard and his father in his sermon ("bastard slips shall not take root"). Croyland doesn't mention the sermon; whether Mancini does, I don't know offhand as I have no access to anything except excerpts from his text. (Ross says that he gives the Edward-IV-as-bastard version, but since he spoke little or no English, he could not have actually heard the sermon.) Fabyan (who was probably present and definitely did speak English) has Dr. Shaa talking only about the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons, nothing about a resemblance between Richard and his father (which would relate to charges that Edward IV, rather than his children, was illegitimate.

Vergil, who denies (almost certainly wrongly) that Dr. Sha (his spelling) talked about the precontract, says this:

"Raphe Sha, a learnyd man . . . began to instruct the people, by many reasons, how that the late king Edward was not begotten by Richard duke of York, but by soome other, who pryvyly and by stelth had had knowledge of his mother; and [t]hat the same did manyfestly appeare by sure demonstrations, because king Edward was nether in physnomy nor shape of body lyke unto Richard the father; for he was highe of stature, thother very little; he of large face, thother short and rownd. Howbeyt, . . . no man could dowt but Richard [of Gloucester], now in place, was the dukes trew soone, who by right owght to inheryt the realme dew to his father . . ."

So Vergil, who never saw any of the people concerned and never heard the sermon, mentions height and face shape (getting Richard's face shape completely wrong) but nothing about dark coloring.

More, on the other hand, has Richard concerned about his mother's reputation so that the subject of Edward's bastardy is merely "touched upon craftily" while the sermon focuses on the illegitimacy of his children--no reference in that section to a resemblance between father and son.

Yet later, he contradicts himself and says that Richard had Shaa declare that not only Edward IV but George of Clarence was not the legitimate son of the Duke of York, after which he has Shaa declare that Edward was previously married to Elizabeth Lucy! After that, he does have Shaw say (twice) that Richard was the image of his father: " From whose vertuous condicions, [Shaa] said, that very noble prince, the special paterne of knightly prowes, as well in all princely behauor as in the liniamentes & fauor of his visage, represented the verye face of the noble duke his father. This is quod he, the fathers owne figure, this is his own countenance, the very prent of his visage, the sure vndoubted image, the plaiyne expresse likenes of that noble Duke."

More is, of course, being ironic, since his Richard is visibly deformed and has a withered arm, not to mention that he's anything but virtuous. (And how anyone can take his account as accurate with such contradictions and misstatements is beyond my comprehension. He even gets Dr. Shaa's first name wrong, calling him John instead of Ralph.) But, again, no mention of coloring or even specific (if partially inaccurate) details of appearance as in Vergil.

Apparently, Vergil is the source of the idea that the Duke of York was small. I can't find any early reference to either him or Richard being dark in the R III chronicles. Whether chronicles specifically devoted to the Duke of York mention his coloring, I don't know. He was a Plantagenet with a Mortimer mother, so if the Mortimers were dark, it's possible that he was. But since his children apparently weren't, at least those for whom we have portraits, they must all have received the recessive (Plantagenet) genes for lighter coloring if that's the case.

If someone can quote Mancini's version of Dr. Shaa's (Shaw's) sermon for me or has access to a contemporary description of Richard, Duke of York (Richard's father, not his nephew), I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: Richard's build and coloring (Was: Anne
Mowbray)


> "Raphe Sha, a learnyd man . . . began to instruct the people, by many
> reasons, how that the late king Edward was not begotten by Richard duke of
> York, but by soome other, who pryvyly and by stelth had had knowledge of
> his mother; and [t]hat the same did manyfestly appeare by sure
> demonstrations, because king Edward was nether in physnomy nor shape of
> body lyke unto Richard the father; for he was highe of stature, thother
> very little; he of large face, thother short and rownd. Howbeyt, . . . no
> man could dowt but Richard [of Gloucester], now in place, was the dukes
> trew soone, who by right owght to inheryt the realme dew to his father . .
> ."

> So Vergil, who never saw any of the people concerned and never heard the
> sermon, mentions height and face shape (getting Richard's face shape
> completely wrong)

Not *completely* wrong - Richard does seem to have a slightly shorter face
than Edward, who has a long vertical nose like on a Norman helmet rather
than one which sticks out. It's the "round" which is a mile off. Anyway,
this is one case where somebody writing - what, 20 years after Richard's
death? - does describe him as short, not just skinny. Of course, even at
5'4" he would still have looked strikingly shorter than Edward: he would
barely have come up to his chin.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Did Mrs Weir ever say where she found Joan ?  We know she doesn't use footnotes and frankly if she's not in those other sources, it seems unlikely she existed.

Carol responds:

All I know is that Marie mentioned Alison Weir's genealogy as the apparent source of the Joan rumor. I assume that she's referring to Weir's first book, "Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy," which is available on Kindle through Amazon for a small price ($8.67--whatever that amounts to in pounds). Unfortunately, the sample stops with the Anglo-Saxon kings and there's no search function to look for Joan. Weir claims that the book took her twenty-two years to research and calls it "an invaluable aid to the student of royal history." But since she doesn't cite sources and is, well, gullible with regard to their reliability, I think I'll pass on buying this little gem.

Wikipedia (that other reliable source!) lists Joan as being born in 1438, a year before Anne. The source appears to be this genealogy, which has her born and dying in 1438: http://www.royalist.info/execute/tree?person=72 It also has Henry, the eldest son, born in 1441 and dying in 1446 (which fits my theory that he lived beyond infancy to about age five), but where the information came from, I have no idea. It has the deaths of Edward IV's sons with no question mark as 1483 and gives him another child, sex unknown, by Eleanor Butler. Not, it would seem, a reliable source, just one that takes as "fact" whatever is constantly repeated. Where have we encountered that problem before? (Rhetorical question.)

In short, I agree with you that Joan is probably imaginary, but it seems odd that even Alison Weir would invent her out of airy nothing.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> No problem, your questions are valid. That's why if we perhaps knew more about Weir's Isabel it might help us. We do know the name of R's nurse, I'm pretty sure, but I can't recall it without looking it up.
>

Interesting - would love to hear it if you recall it!

According to Halsted, the York boys' governess would have been 'the daughter of Sir Edward Cornwall, Baron of Burford, and the widow of Sir Hugh Mortimer, a collateral branch of the house of York'. So that would be Eleanor Cornwall/Mortimer, then.

Much to my shame, I don't know if nurses and governesses had different responsibilities... but then, I don't even know which way one is supposed to hold a baby. Sigh.

A nurse is a nursemaid and looks after babies and little kids.  A governness  is a home tutor but is more Victorian I think, where boys got sent off to school and girls weren't.
 


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 17:37
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

 
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> No problem, your questions are valid. That's why if we perhaps knew more about Weir's Isabel it might help us. We do know the name of R's nurse, I'm pretty sure, but I can't recall it without looking it up.
>

Interesting - would love to hear it if you recall it!

According to Halsted, the York boys' governess would have been 'the daughter of Sir Edward Cornwall, Baron of Burford, and the widow of Sir Hugh Mortimer, a collateral branch of the house of York'. So that would be Eleanor Cornwall/Mortimer, then.

Much to my shame, I don't know if nurses and governesses had different responsibilities... but then, I don't even know which way one is supposed to hold a baby. Sigh.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> A nurse is a nursemaid and looks after babies and little kids.  A governness  is a home tutor but is more Victorian I think, where boys got sent off to school and girls weren't.
>  
>

That's true - I just wonder what the distinction was in the 15th century? Would Eleanor have been what the Victorians would have known as a nursery governess (as opposed to the kind of governess who teaches middle-class girls to speak French and play the piano) or the Big Boss in Charge of Lowly Nurserymaids or what? She seems a teensy bit too well-born for some kind of an all-purpose nappy-changing machine who is covered in baby vomit and toddler goo and chases the older children around the premises in a desperate effort to prevent them from falling from trees and breaking their necks. (Yes, that's my idea of a typical day in a family with children ;))

The word 'governess' in the sense of a female live-in teacher is of 18th-century origin, as well as I'm aware; certainly not much earlier than that. But does the governess as a concept date further back?

Pansy dobersby wrote:

"That's true - I just wonder what the distinction was in the 15th century?
Would Eleanor have been what the Victorians would have known as a nursery
governess (as opposed to the kind of governess who teaches middle-class
girls to speak French and play the piano) or the Big Boss in Charge of Lowly
Nurserymaids or what? She seems a teensy bit too well-born for some kind of
an all-purpose nappy-changing machine who is covered in baby vomit and
toddler goo and chases the older children around the premises in a desperate
effort to prevent them from falling from trees and breaking their necks.
(Yes, that's my idea of a typical day in a family with children ;))
The word 'governess' in the sense of a female live-in teacher is of
18th-century origin, as well as I'm aware; certainly not much earlier than
that. But does the governess as a concept date further back?"

Doug here:
I believe "Governess" would, in this instance mean "Head of the Household of
X" (X being a a Royal female). Her responsibilities would be a combination
of guardian of the child, seeing to its health, education, and manager of
the household set up for that child. At least that's the way it operated for
male Royal children with separate Households.
Doug



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hang on - one of the quotes on this page:
http://www.geni.com/people/Eleanor-Mortimer/6000000006444357394

Says this about her:

"ELEANOR CORNEWALL, born 1430/5, married 1st, Sir Hugh Mortimer, of Kyre Wyard and Martley, Worcestershire, and Tedstone Wafer, Herefordshire, heir of the Tedstone Wafer Mortimers. He was killed at Wakefield in December 1460, and was buried in the Church of St. Peter, Martley. By him she had a son and a daughter. She married 2nd, Sir Richard Croft (d. 29 July 1509), of Croft Castle, Herefordshire, sheriff of Herefordshire 1471-72, 1477, 1486, MP Herefordshire 1477, and had three more sons and five more daughters. The Crofts had occupied Croft Castle since before the Conquest. Eleanor was the governess of Edward IV's sons at Ludlow Castle. She died 23 Dec. 1519, at an advanced age, and was buried with her second husband in the chapel of Croft Castle (tomb now in St. Michael church, Croft)."

So was she, in fact, the 'governess' of Edward IV's sons as this paragraph says? In that case Halsted obviously mistook the 'young Princes in Ludlow Castle' to mean Richard and George?

(It also seems that Eleanor's father was Edmund Cornwall, not Edward.)

Pansy wrote:

> Yes, it does look reddish in that portrait - but I seem to remember EW was described as having pale gold hair?
>
> I may have got that particular colour mixed up with her daughter Mary's hair, though (that's what comes up when I try to look this up on Google!). But wasn't there *something* special about EW's hair or is my memory playing tricks on me?
>
Carol responds:

I haven't checked anyone earlier to see where the "gilt" (golden) idea came from, but More has her fair-haired (presumably blonde) in the melodramatic and completely imaginary scene in which she finds out about the "deaths" of the "princes":

"Her breast she beat, her fair hair she tore, and calling by name her sweet babes, accounted herself mad when she delivered her younger son out of sanctuary, for his uncle to put him to death."

I'm guessing that More, who probably never saw Elizabeth Woodville, was basing his description on the stained glass windows.

"Silver-gilt" seems to be Tey's invention, followed by Penman and a number of others. Anyone own a biography of her? Surely, it would have a description and cite sources.

Carol

> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I have never seen that second portrait of Edward that you posted. It must be of him as a young man. Is it just me or does he look a bit like Richard in the NPG portrait? Where is that portrait of Edward now?
> >
Pansy responded:
> NPG, apparently:
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02028/King-Edward-IV?LinkID=mp01427&search=sas&sText=edward+iv&role=sit&rNo=0
>
> I can see what you mean about the resemblance, but bizarrely, I think he looks even more like his own wife in it!! And I'd have guessed it was painted by the same artist as EW's portrait, except that it appears to be a late 16th-century picture (copy?).
>

Carol responds:

NPG also has a portrait of Richard that appears to be by the same artist (the ugly one used as a cover for Kendall's biography:

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw05305/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=0

At any rate, they have the same color scheme, are both oil on panel,
and have the same dimensions, 22 1/2 in. x 17 5/8 in. (572 mm x 448 mm). They are both in Montacute House and were part of the same lot purchased in 1974, NPG 4980(10) and NPG 4980(12). If, as I think, they're by the same artist (or should I say copyist), it's interesting that they both look thin and melancholy, but Richard looks older and harsher. They're dated late sixteenth century, a century later than the more famous NPG portrait of Richard. Tudor propaganda was making its mark.

BTW, I think the portrait of Edward, at least, needs to be cleaned since his hat blends in with the background. Notice that the jewel that's usually given to Richard is given to Edward here. Also. as late as the portrait is, it's not likely to be any more of a likeness to the living king than the one of Richard by (apparently) the same artist is.

Carol

It always astonishing to me that the Virgin was was Middle East and would be of olive complexion( if not even darker)! The artists through the centuries has depicted her as a pale blond, blue eyed beauty...... Too sad that even Mary's purity has to be translated into western model of beauty.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 18, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> EW's idealised picture (I won't call it a portrait) for, I think, the Company of Skinners (1472) has EW with long blond hair, as does the Canterbury window. But, as Laynesmith points out, medieval queens were expected to be portrayed as ressembling the Virgin, who was idealised in her portraiture as blond, even though she couldn't have been. In her most famous portrait, the hair in front of EW's henin is brown and her eyes are brown.
> I'm talking about the NPG picture of Edward where again he has brown, not golden hair and darker eyes than Richard.
> So are we talking about 'fair' meaning handsome? H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 14:15
> Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)
>
> As far as I know, there's not contemporary description of Elizabeth
> Woodville's coloring, but I couldn't swear to it. In novels, she's often a
> white blonde or, to quote Josephine Tey, who is quoting someone else,
> "gilt" blonde. It's become popular, I guess, but as far as I know, it
> wasn't noted as such during her lifetime.
>
> Of course, you know, it may not have been totally natural! Here's one of
> my favorite excerpts from one of my favorite "history" anthologies, _The
> Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_, by the late, great Will Cuppy.
> This is from his chapter on Lucrezia Borgia:
>
> "She [Lucrezia] was not an ugly girl, either, though she was not the raving
> beauty of song and story. She was fairly pretty, with a strong nose, a
> retreating chin, and eyes of indeterminate color. But she had a nice
> figure, and men of the Renaissance noticed those things. She also had
> bright yellow hair, which she washed once a week with a mixture of saffron,
> box shavings, wood ash, barley straw, madder, cumin seed, and one thing and
> another to bring out the hidden glints and restore its natural color. You
> left it on your head for twenty-four hours and washed it off with lye made
> of cabbage stalks, the only hazard of which was the second-degree burn. If
> your hair remained on the scalp, you were a blonde.
>
> Some people still prefer to think of her as a brunette. If it makes them
> happy, that's all right with me."
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:04 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan"
> > <whitehound@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?
> > >
> > > In the portrait I have of her - the one with the gauzy headdress - she
> > too
> > > has hazel eyes and her hair appears to be very fine and thin, and a sort
> > of
> > > strawberry blonde.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it does look reddish in that portrait - but I seem to remember EW was
> > described as having pale gold hair?
> >
> > I may have got that particular colour mixed up with her daughter Mary's
> > hair, though (that's what comes up when I try to look this up on Google!).
> > But wasn't there *something* special about EW's hair or is my memory
> > playing tricks on me?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hilary, we don't think he had anything wrong with him. Yes, people are still calling him the H word but people are still calling Obama a Muslim( smirks). Go figure.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 18, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> I still keep banging on about the fact that no contemporary friend or foe ever mentioned anything wrong with him apart from one shoulder higher than the other. I'd hoped the conference would put this right on 2nd, but clearly it didn't.
> Someone with some authority really does need to shout out Lyn Foxhall's statement that he did not have kyphosis.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 7:21
> Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt
>
>
>
>
> >>>
> although he can't really have been
> less than 5'1" without ending up looking like a gibbon<<<
>
> Claire, you created such a picture in my mind that I nearly choked on my morning tea!
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
>

I know you don't. As I said to Carol it's like swotting flies in the media though. You think you've sorted one out and another heads for you.


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013, 0:47
Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt


 

Hilary, we don't think he had anything wrong with him. Yes, people are still calling him the H word but people are still calling Obama a Muslim( smirks). Go figure.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 18, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> I still keep banging on about the fact that no contemporary friend or foe ever mentioned anything wrong with him apart from one shoulder higher than the other. I'd hoped the conference would put this right on 2nd, but clearly it didn't.
> Someone with some authority really does need to shout out Lyn Foxhall's statement that he did not have kyphosis.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 7:21
> Subject: Re: 4'8" would likely really hurt
>
>
>
>
> >>>
> although he can't really have been
> less than 5'1" without ending up looking like a gibbon<<<
>
> Claire, you created such a picture in my mind that I nearly choked on my morning tea!
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have two, Okerlund and Baldwin. Both dodge the issue by saying she was beautiful with a fine-boned face (this from her portraits) but they fail to attempt any other description. Like you I reckon the silver-gilt must have come from Tey;  that and a combination of our having seen the girls idealised with gold hair in the Canterbury window.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 23:51
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

 

Pansy wrote:

> Yes, it does look reddish in that portrait - but I seem to remember EW was described as having pale gold hair?
>
> I may have got that particular colour mixed up with her daughter Mary's hair, though (that's what comes up when I try to look this up on Google!). But wasn't there *something* special about EW's hair or is my memory playing tricks on me?
>
Carol responds:

I haven't checked anyone earlier to see where the "gilt" (golden) idea came from, but More has her fair-haired (presumably blonde) in the melodramatic and completely imaginary scene in which she finds out about the "deaths" of the "princes":

"Her breast she beat, her fair hair she tore, and calling by name her sweet babes, accounted herself mad when she delivered her younger son out of sanctuary, for his uncle to put him to death."

I'm guessing that More, who probably never saw Elizabeth Woodville, was basing his description on the stained glass windows.

"Silver-gilt" seems to be Tey's invention, followed by Penman and a number of others. Anyone own a biography of her? Surely, it would have a description and cite sources.

Carol

Wilkinson cites Anne of Caux, Richard's former wet nurse as his probable nurse during the Fotheringhay years. She was given a grant for life 'in consideration of her poverty' of 20s a year. A lot less than Alice Burgh and she's certainly no 'beloved gentlewoman'. 



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 18:48
Subject: Childcare (was Re: Richard's build)

 

Hang on - one of the quotes on this page:
http://www.geni.com/people/Eleanor-Mortimer/6000000006444357394

Says this about her:

"ELEANOR CORNEWALL, born 1430/5, married 1st, Sir Hugh Mortimer, of Kyre Wyard and Martley, Worcestershire, and Tedstone Wafer, Herefordshire, heir of the Tedstone Wafer Mortimers. He was killed at Wakefield in December 1460, and was buried in the Church of St. Peter, Martley. By him she had a son and a daughter. She married 2nd, Sir Richard Croft (d. 29 July 1509), of Croft Castle, Herefordshire, sheriff of Herefordshire 1471-72, 1477, 1486, MP Herefordshire 1477, and had three more sons and five more daughters. The Crofts had occupied Croft Castle since before the Conquest. Eleanor was the governess of Edward IV's sons at Ludlow Castle. She died 23 Dec. 1519, at an advanced age, and was buried with her second husband in the chapel of Croft Castle (tomb now in St. Michael church, Croft)."

So was she, in fact, the 'governess' of Edward IV's sons as this paragraph says? In that case Halsted obviously mistook the 'young Princes in Ludlow Castle' to mean Richard and George?

(It also seems that Eleanor's father was Edmund Cornwall, not Edward.)

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)


> I have two, Okerlund and Baldwin. Both dodge the issue by saying she was
> beautiful with a fine-boned face (this from her portraits) but they fail
> to attempt any other description. Like you I reckon the silver-gilt must
> have come from Tey; that and a combination of our having seen the girls
> idealised with gold hair in the Canterbury window.

But she is blonde in the portrait with the gauze headress - sort-of blonde,
anyway. Her hair-colour seems to be on the verge between dark blonde, pale
red and ultra-pale brown and I think if you saw it nowadays most people
would call it red-blonde. In fact, it's about the colour of red gold, so
gilt is true, silver-gilt not.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Childcare (was Re: Richard's build)


> Wilkinson cites Anne of Caux, Richard's former wet nurse as his probable
> nurse during the Fotheringhay years. She was given a grant for life 'in
> consideration of her poverty' of 20s a year. A lot less than Alice Burgh
> and she's certainly no 'beloved gentlewoman'.

I know that £10 equates to a bit over £6,000 now, so 20s (£1) a year equates
to around £40 ($70) a week. It would be a pittance if that was *all* you
were living on - OTOH if it was a supplement to another small income, or you
were living with family or in an alms house so you didn't have to pay for
bed and board, it would be a welcome help.

Oh yes I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that Alice Burgh at £24 a year was indeed being well-rewarded for something.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013, 10:33
Subject: Re: Childcare (was Re: Richard's build)

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Childcare (was Re: Richard's build)

> Wilkinson cites Anne of Caux, Richard's former wet nurse as his probable
> nurse during the Fotheringhay years. She was given a grant for life 'in
> consideration of her poverty' of 20s a year. A lot less than Alice Burgh
> and she's certainly no 'beloved gentlewoman'.

I know that £10 equates to a bit over £6,000 now, so 20s (£1) a year equates
to around £40 ($70) a week. It would be a pittance if that was *all* you
were living on - OTOH if it was a supplement to another small income, or you
were living with family or in an alms house so you didn't have to pay for
bed and board, it would be a welcome help.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Childcare (was Re: Richard's build)


> Oh yes I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that Alice Burgh at £24 a
> year was indeed being well-rewarded for something.

Also, if she *was* John's mother, this may have been in part to pay for his
schooling. It's a pity we don't know when John was born. The pattern of
Richard's visits to Pontefract could mean that John was conceived in spring
1473 (after he was married!) and the grant in 1474 was given just after the
child's birth. But that would mean John was made Captian of Calais when he
was ten or eleven, and it sounds like it was more than just a ceremonial
post - he was to have all the running of the outpost, other than hiring and
firing staff which was to wait until he was of age. Does "of age" mean 21
here, do we know, or less than that?

I know Richard commanded an army when he was twelve, but only to move them
from point to point and organisie their billets: it seems extreme to give
such an important, complex, long-term job as commanding Calais to an
eleven-year-old. If John was in fact about seventeen at this point it would
make more sense. In that case Richard's repeated visits to Pontefract even
after his marriage would probably have been (at least mainly) to see his
son, and the grant of £24 would have been given when John was about seven,
and probably intended to pay for his upkeep and schooling.

Probably because in the middle ages they were trying to "forget" she was Jewish?  And of course Jesus always has blue eyes even if his hair is dark. 


From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013, 0:37
Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)

 
It always astonishing to me that the Virgin was was Middle East and would be of olive complexion( if not even darker)! The artists through the centuries has depicted her as a pale blond, blue eyed beauty...... Too sad that even Mary's purity has to be translated into western model of beauty.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 18, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> EW's idealised picture (I won't call it a portrait) for, I think, the Company of Skinners (1472) has EW with long blond hair, as does the Canterbury window. But, as Laynesmith points out, medieval queens were expected to be portrayed as ressembling the Virgin, who was idealised in her portraiture as blond, even though she couldn't have been. In her most famous portrait, the hair in front of EW's henin is brown and her eyes are brown.
> I'm talking about the NPG picture of Edward where again he has brown, not golden hair and darker eyes than Richard.
> So are we talking about 'fair' meaning handsome? H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maria Torres <mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 14:15
> Subject: Re: Richard's build (Was: Anne Mowbray)
>
> As far as I know, there's not contemporary description of Elizabeth
> Woodville's coloring, but I couldn't swear to it. In novels, she's often a
> white blonde or, to quote Josephine Tey, who is quoting someone else,
> "gilt" blonde. It's become popular, I guess, but as far as I know, it
> wasn't noted as such during her lifetime.
>
> Of course, you know, it may not have been totally natural! Here's one of
> my favorite excerpts from one of my favorite "history" anthologies, _The
> Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_, by the late, great Will Cuppy.
> This is from his chapter on Lucrezia Borgia:
>
> "She [Lucrezia] was not an ugly girl, either, though she was not the raving
> beauty of song and story. She was fairly pretty, with a strong nose, a
> retreating chin, and eyes of indeterminate color. But she had a nice
> figure, and men of the Renaissance noticed those things. She also had
> bright yellow hair, which she washed once a week with a mixture of saffron,
> box shavings, wood ash, barley straw, madder, cumin seed, and one thing and
> another to bring out the hidden glints and restore its natural color. You
> left it on your head for twenty-four hours and washed it off with lye made
> of cabbage stalks, the only hazard of which was the second-degree burn. If
> your hair remained on the scalp, you were a blonde.
>
> Some people still prefer to think of her as a brunette. If it makes them
> happy, that's all right with me."
>
> Maria
> mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:04 AM, pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> > <whitehound@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Wasn't EW supposed to have been a blonde?
> > >
> > > In the portrait I have of her - the one with the gauzy headdress - she
> > too
> > > has hazel eyes and her hair appears to be very fine and thin, and a sort
> > of
> > > strawberry blonde.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it does look reddish in that portrait - but I seem to remember EW was
> > described as having pale gold hair?
> >
> > I may have got that particular colour mixed up with her daughter Mary's
> > hair, though (that's what comes up when I try to look this up on Google!).
> > But wasn't there *something* special about EW's hair or is my memory
> > playing tricks on me?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Well Carol it was Mrs Weir who wrote to all the newspapers to tell them she had discovered " a new source" which proved that Richard had murdered the Princes. That new source was? Sir Thomas More's History of Richard III. Enough said about her research skills.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Did Mrs Weir ever say where she found Joan ?  We know she doesn't use footnotes and frankly if she's not in those other sources, it seems unlikely she existed.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> All I know is that Marie mentioned Alison Weir's genealogy as the apparent source of the Joan rumor. I assume that she's referring to Weir's first book, "Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy," which is available on Kindle through Amazon for a small price ($8.67--whatever that amounts to in pounds). Unfortunately, the sample stops with the Anglo-Saxon kings and there's no search function to look for Joan. Weir claims that the book took her twenty-two years to research and calls it "an invaluable aid to the student of royal history." But since she doesn't cite sources and is, well, gullible with regard to their reliability, I think I'll pass on buying this little gem.
>
> Wikipedia (that other reliable source!) lists Joan as being born in 1438, a year before Anne. The source appears to be this genealogy, which has her born and dying in 1438: http://www.royalist.info/execute/tree?person=72 It also has Henry, the eldest son, born in 1441 and dying in 1446 (which fits my theory that he lived beyond infancy to about age five), but where the information came from, I have no idea. It has the deaths of Edward IV's sons with no question mark as 1483 and gives him another child, sex unknown, by Eleanor Butler. Not, it would seem, a reliable source, just one that takes as "fact" whatever is constantly repeated. Where have we encountered that problem before? (Rhetorical question.)
>
> In short, I agree with you that Joan is probably imaginary, but it seems odd that even Alison Weir would invent her out of airy nothing.
>
> Carol
>

Did anyone in the media, laugh?

On Mar 19, 2013, at 8:13 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:



Well Carol it was Mrs Weir who wrote to all the newspapers to tell them she had discovered " a new source" which proved that Richard had murdered the Princes. That new source was? Sir Thomas More's History of Richard III. Enough said about her research skills.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Did Mrs Weir ever say where she found Joan ? We know she doesn't use footnotes and frankly if she's not in those other sources, it seems unlikely she existed.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> All I know is that Marie mentioned Alison Weir's genealogy as the apparent source of the Joan rumor. I assume that she's referring to Weir's first book, "Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy," which is available on Kindle through Amazon for a small price ($8.67--whatever that amounts to in pounds). Unfortunately, the sample stops with the Anglo-Saxon kings and there's no search function to look for Joan. Weir claims that the book took her twenty-two years to research and calls it "an invaluable aid to the student of royal history." But since she doesn't cite sources and is, well, gullible with regard to their reliability, I think I'll pass on buying this little gem.
>
> Wikipedia (that other reliable source!) lists Joan as being born in 1438, a year before Anne. The source appears to be this genealogy, which has her born and dying in 1438: http://www.royalist.info/execute/tree?person=72 It also has Henry, the eldest son, born in 1441 and dying in 1446 (which fits my theory that he lived beyond infancy to about age five), but where the information came from, I have no idea. It has the deaths of Edward IV's sons with no question mark as 1483 and gives him another child, sex unknown, by Eleanor Butler. Not, it would seem, a reliable source, just one that takes as "fact" whatever is constantly repeated. Where have we encountered that problem before? (Rhetorical question.)
>
> In short, I agree with you that Joan is probably imaginary, but it seems odd that even Alison Weir would invent her out of airy nothing.
>
> Carol
>

I am not sure about that, but after her book came out Peter Hammond did a review of it in the Ricardian and I am pleased to say he set the matter straight.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Did anyone in the media, laugh?
>
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 8:13 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well Carol it was Mrs Weir who wrote to all the newspapers to tell them she had discovered " a new source" which proved that Richard had murdered the Princes. That new source was? Sir Thomas More's History of Richard III. Enough said about her research skills.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Did Mrs Weir ever say where she found Joan ? We know she doesn't use footnotes and frankly if she's not in those other sources, it seems unlikely she existed.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > All I know is that Marie mentioned Alison Weir's genealogy as the apparent source of the Joan rumor. I assume that she's referring to Weir's first book, "Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy," which is available on Kindle through Amazon for a small price ($8.67--whatever that amounts to in pounds). Unfortunately, the sample stops with the Anglo-Saxon kings and there's no search function to look for Joan. Weir claims that the book took her twenty-two years to research and calls it "an invaluable aid to the student of royal history." But since she doesn't cite sources and is, well, gullible with regard to their reliability, I think I'll pass on buying this little gem.
> >
> > Wikipedia (that other reliable source!) lists Joan as being born in 1438, a year before Anne. The source appears to be this genealogy, which has her born and dying in 1438: http://www.royalist.info/execute/tree?person=72 It also has Henry, the eldest son, born in 1441 and dying in 1446 (which fits my theory that he lived beyond infancy to about age five), but where the information came from, I have no idea. It has the deaths of Edward IV's sons with no question mark as 1483 and gives him another child, sex unknown, by Eleanor Butler. Not, it would seem, a reliable source, just one that takes as "fact" whatever is constantly repeated. Where have we encountered that problem before? (Rhetorical question.)
> >
> > In short, I agree with you that Joan is probably imaginary, but it seems odd that even Alison Weir would invent her out of airy nothing.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Christine wrote:

> > Hello, I believe that when Edward's tomb was opened it was found that he had chestnut hair which is fairly dark, Richard's may have been the same or a bit darker.
> >
Pansy responded:

> Interesting - I'd have thought of chestnut as a red-brown, but then I'm thinking about horses here!
>
Carol responds:

J A-H says it was brown, which seems to be confirmed by the photos. This one is labeled, "A lock of hair from King Edward IV (1461-83) in Brighton Museum":

http://ageofuncertainty.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html

This one (sorry it's so small) is from the Society of Antiquaries:

http://makinghistory.sal.org.uk/assets/T/OB027a.jpg

Go here and scroll down almost to the for the full story, which also labels the hair as brown:

http://makinghistory.sal.org.uk/page.php?cat=2

This shot, supposedly taken in an art museum, looks like the first one but a bit lighter brown (poss9bly it's the lighting):

http://carriegoestolondon.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to see the photo and click to enlarge.

Carol